The book of Enoch is mentioned in Jude. People are sayingme that this book teach eternal torment. Do you know if Enoch contradicts the Bible at some point? There are pseudopigrapha who held universalism or annihilationism that are mentioned by early christians? Jude also quote Assumptions of Moses. Have this ECT as well?
i haven’t made an in depth study of the Book of Enoch. however, my impression of it was that it was anti-Biblical and very evil. it mentions a great many things that are extra Biblical and unverifiable, such as heirarchies of demons and angels. it talks of certain judged souls (angelic and human i believe) begging God for mercy, and Him basically saying “no, screw you.”
the fact that Jude mentions it briefly is in my opinion no more relevant than a modern preacher quoting a film. the book of enoch was known at the time, and Jude references it. that does not make it true or canon or inspired by the Holy Spirit.
i suppose a slightly better analogy would be when Jesus references the well known (at the time) story of the rich man and Lazarus, and hijacks it to make a very different point.
the church banned the book of enoch, and for good reason. unfortunate that the church of Ethiopia didn’t get the memo 
i wonder if the fact that Augustine was in charge of North Africa (if i have my facts straight) means he was exposed to the ideas in that book, and that helped him formulate his ECT views, as he is credited with much of what is believed about hell nowadays. maybe Sobornost can help on that if he’s looking…
The book of Enoch is a strange work, it is commonly acknowledged that it was composed by various writers, I think it contradicts itself. Parts of it were found among the Qumran scrolls, yet the Qumran community seems to have believed in annihilation, even the book of Enoch implies the annihilation the wicked and that even the life of the saints is terminable in various parts. Jude did not quote the existing book of Enoch or if he did so he altered it, the book of Enoch has “destroy” whereas Jude has “rebuke”, this difference is not insignificant.
This is what I wrote concerning the book of Enoch when I wrote an essay about aion(ios):
I also found that link:
apologeticspress.org/APConte … ticle=1179
Wikipedia is also interesting for that matter:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Moses
Here the book of Enoch is refuted in great detail, it contains many obvious scientific errors and contradictions:
Hi Chums 
- good points all
Here are the Pseudepigrapha texts from the first and second centuries that support universalism in some way (note that the word ‘Pseudepigrapha’ means that the writings are attributed to some celebrated figure as a pseudonym - a common convention in the ancient world - rather than suggesting that the writings themselves are false):
Sibylline Oracles (second half of the second century A.D.); a collection of oracular utterances ascribed to the Sibyls, prophetesses who uttered divine revelations in ecstasy. Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch (d. circa 185) accounted these texts as inspired on a level with the Old Testament Prophets… The Second Book in the collection – composed sometime in the second century by Christians in Alexandria, perhaps reworking a Jewish original – contains the following oracle:
‘‘And to the pious will the almighty God/Imperishable grant another thing,/When they shall ask the imperishable God:/That he will suffer men from raging fire/And endless gnawing anguish to be saved;/And this will he do. For hereafter he/Will pluck them from the restless flame, elsewhere/Remove them, and for his own people’s sake/Send them to other and eternal life/With the immortals, in Elysian field’’ (Book II, lines 404-413, translated by Terry)
Apocalypse of Peter (Anon – ca. 100-136 A.D.), a Christian Apocalypse, probably written for liturgical use, attests to the doctrine of the intercession of the blessed for the damned. Clement of Alexandria viewed it as inspired.
[In chapters 3-4 Peter worrying about the sinners’ fate says]: “O my Lord, please permit me to quote your own words concerning these sinners, namely, ‘Better if they had never been created,’” [Jesus replies]: “O Peter, why do you say that not having been created would have been better for them? It is you who oppose God in this way! But you certainly do not have more mercy than God has, who created them…there is nothing that perishes for God, nothing that is impossible for him” (Apoc. Pet., chapters 3-4, translated by Ilaria Ramelli)
Life of Adam and Eve/Apocalypse of Moses (anon – the traditions go back to the first century):
[God addresses Archangel Michael] : “Put him [Adam] in Paradise, in the third heaven, until the day of dispensation, which is called oikonomia, when I shall have mercy upon all, through my most beloved Child” (Latin Codex of Life and Adam and Eve, translated by Ilaria Ramelli)
Epistula Apostolorum /Letter of the Apostles (Anon – middle of second century A.D.); a text used regularly by the relatively isolated Ethiopian Orthodox Church. It’s doctrine is orthodox rather than Gnostic, and it includes a scene where the righteous intercede for the dammed at the judgment
‘And we said to him, ‘O Lord, we are truly troubled on their account.’’ And he said to us, ‘’You do well, for so are the righteous anxious about the sinners and they pray and implore God and ask him. ‘’And we said to him, ‘’O Lord, does not one entreat you?’’ And he said ‘Yes I will heed the request of the righteous concerning them’ (Epist. Apost. 40, Ethiopic; Coptic is substantially the same, trans. Elliot)
P.S. There is also a second century Apocalypse of Elijah in which God allows the blessed to intercede for the damned - but this does not make it clear whether the blessed ask for rescue, mitigation, or even increased punishments for the damned.
Finally there is a fifth century Apocalypse of Paul where St Paul is imagined as being grief stricken by the torments of the damned - he manages to ensure they get a Sabbath rest from torment each week (this appears to me as evidence of an uneasy conscience in a Church in which universalism is rapidly becoming a non-option; it also mirrors the thought of some Rabbis))
Jude’s reference to the Book of Enoch IS more relevant for this reason: Jude believed it to have been written by the historic Enoch “the seventh from Adam.”
It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” (Jude 1:14, 15)
Jude’s quote from the book differs somewhat from the translation of Enoch chapter 2 which we have today:
Behold he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them and destroy the wicked, and reprove the carnel for everything which is sinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.
Jude’s belief that the book of Enoch was written by the historic Enoch was false. Yet many second century writers also held this belief:
The introduction to the copy of Enoch which I possess, states that Irenaeus assigned to the Book of Enoch an authenticity analogous to that of Mosaic literature, that Clement of Alexandria cites it without questioning its sacred character, that Tertullian spoke of the author as “the most ancient prophet, Enoch,” and of the book as the divinely inspired autograph of that immortal patriarch, preserved by Noah in the ark, that Origen assigns to the Book of Enoch the same authority as to that of the Psalms.
Kind of interesting that two well-known universalists would have such a high opinion of it; it makes sense for Tertullian to, but them?
However, the Alexandrian school (Origen most famously of all, but ClemAlex as well) had a tendency to interpret the scriptures rather like the rabbis of the time (especially the Alexandrian Philonic Jews): quite… conveniently. 
So they would look for a ‘spiritual’ interpretation which the mature believer would get out of it leaving the ‘carnal’ interpretation to those less mature who would thereby benefit by it anyway. This was related to the doctrine of reserve of course.
In that light, it shouldn’t be surprising that they were entirely prepared to welcome the book as scripture: no doubt they just applied the same interpretative procedure to it as to anything else they had trouble with in the main canon.
The book of Enoch compared with the Apocalypse of Peter and the Sybiline Oracles (which both promote universalism to some degree) is at least more cautious describing the torments of the damned if I remember correctly. I do not think that it assures the endlessness of future punishment, I think it could be more or less in line with a universalist belief like Origen’s, that the restoration of all might last for long ages and is acomplished by fiery torments (that needn’t to be taken literally).