Yekcidmij
Presbyterian, Polymath
- Feb 18, 2002
- 10,450
- 1,449
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
I don't understand why you don't consider it scripture then really.
Mainly because I disagree with the text.
Jude implied that it was scripture, using it and quoting from it, claiming it to be prophesy.
I don't use it any more than I use Paul's various external sources.
Those that place their faith in God to redeem them, and therefore are redeemed? Yes. It's the same group of people.
The question begging continues. How can you prove that the "elect" in Enoch are the same as the "elect" in the New Testament? I get that you assert this as fact, so you don't have to keep asserting it.
See, when I read Enoch I get the feeling that the "elect" are a particular sect of Jews maybe around the around the time of or shortly after the return from the Babylonian exile (or the Maccabean period depending on which parts of the book you're referring to) and are probably the ones responsible for writing the book. It looks to me like the group rejected the legitimacy of the 2nd Temple (which sort of makes a lot of sense if you read about what was going on) and the legitimacy of the calendar and corresponding Sabbaths and feasts. It seems they thought the heavenly luminaries (ie, the sun, moon, stars, and planets) were actually fallen angels who had transgressed God's divine calendar and so didn't show up at their "appointed" times, which to them was the perfectly symmetrical 364 day year. The book devotes much of it's writing to explaining the things it thinks were most important, such as the calendar. It seems the [initial] group may have been Northern Israelite/Samaritan in origin (See Milik for more, MILIK - The Book of Enoch Aramaic Fragments Qumran Cave 4 : J. T. Milik : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive ).
The group writing this text thought of themselves as "elect" over and against the other Jewish sects, and especially those that subscribed to the temple and it's leadership in Jerusalem. The group at Qumran, undoubtedly Essenes, probably saw themselves as the rightful inheritors of this tradition and so where themselves made part of the "elect."
This is why it sounds comparable to Christianity because that particular sect carried similar themes, but they didn't mean the same things. It's similar to the relationship between Christianity and Mormonism in that both groups use very similar language, but mean very different things.
There's been a misunderstanding here: The earliest book (as in the oldest one we have to this date found) dated back 200 years before Jesus was born. This doesn't mean that this is when the book was written.
Of course, but you just have to fill that 1800 year gap with something beyond supposition.
There are a few different versions that have popped up since, but the ones people generally refer to match yeah. There's three main versions, the greek version isn't the one I'd read. The Ethiopian or the Aramaic ones are consistent, and hold up to scripture when held in comparison.
They aren't consistent in that the Aramaic ones are missing chapters 37-71. The Greek is missing those chapters as well.
Last edited:
Upvote
0