The Book of Enoch?

FireDragon76 said:

The problem with Heiser's hermeneutic was that he often confused what amounts to religious fan fiction with a kind of grimoire of the supernatural, drawing up a lurid, "manichean" cosmology as a result.

Click to expand...

No doubt.

What is more, there is little to nothing in common between Heiser’s interpretation of 1 Enoch and the faith of the pious and severely persecuted Ethiopian Orthodox and Eritrean Orthodox Christians, whose faith is simply that of the Oriental Orthodox writ large (basically, Coptic theology with a more Semitic, Judeo-Syrian liturgy reflecting Ethiopian Jewish and West Syriac Antiochian Christian influences. They do not interpret 1 Enoch in a manner that gives rise to any cosmological stumbling blocks. I daresay most Ethiopians are not influenced by 1 Enoch with regards to their cosmology in any meaningful way.

FireDragon76 said:

The problem with Heiser's hermeneutic was that he often confused what amounts to religious fan fiction with a kind of grimoire of the supernatural, drawing up a lurid, "manichean" cosmology as a result.

Click to expand...

At least he didn't go in for ancient astronaut conjectures.....

Although Heiser probably exaggerated some of his claims to profundity, I don't think he was wholly wrong on every count or that he clearly represented a "manichean" cosmology. I think there is something, at the least, to the Leviathan motif running through the ancients' religious mindsets of the Bronze Age (and even some into the Classical Age in looking at what ended up in the pool of Greek Myth and legend).

As for the Nephilim and giants and such....................... 'meh.'

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

The Lord Jesus Christ Said The Book of Enoch Is Scripture :

Click to expand...

I don't think this video establishes a direct correspondence between the Matthean text and that of Enoch. It sounds more like an indirect echo.

What to make of it overall? I'm not sure since I'm not seeing much written about 1 Enoch in the Church Fathers (per Bercot) and I rather lean away from speculative theology. But, I'll keep what you've alluded to here in mind.

Connecting to "The Sons Of God" in Genesis and Psalms etc.

Deuteronomy 32 World View - There are Principalities That Rule over Nations​

Jude1:3Contendforthefaith said:

Connecting to "The Sons Of God" in Genesis and Psalms etc.

Deuteronomy 32 World View - There are Principalities That Rule over Nations​

Click to expand...

What I'm posting here isn't being provided out of any attempt to countermand what you've posted, particularly because I do like listening and reading some of what Heiser has said over the years (i.e. the last 10 years or so). But it just so happens that Sean McDowell released his most recent podcast video on Y.T. about 4 hours ago and it's relevant to what's being discussed here, so I'm posting it:

Genesis itself speaks of the giants, with the term nephilim. It is not peculiar to 1 Enoch. I think that new testament passages would not make reference to passages of 1 Enoch if it was not anything of Scripture, with Jesus saying to Sadducees that they knew not the scriptures for not knowing the angels in heaven do not marry, which refers to a passage in 1 Enoch and no other passages that I know were ever found. There are still those references. And so certain fallen angelic beings did come among humans and seduced them into ungodly things and using flesh for their own enjoyment, contrary to God, whom humans were forgetting about.

FredVB said:

Genesis itself speaks of the giants, with the term nephilim. It is not peculiar to 1 Enoch. I think that new testament passages would not make reference to passages of 1 Enoch if it was not anything of Scripture, with Jesus saying to Sadducees that they knew not the scriptures for not knowing the angels in heaven do not marry, which refers to a passage in 1 Enoch and no other passages that I know were ever found. There are still those references. And so certain fallen angelic beings did come among humans and seduced them into ungodly things and using flesh for their own enjoyment, contrary to God, whom humans were forgetting about.

Click to expand...

Again, what do you do about the unfortunate amount of stuff in "Enoch" that's just ridiculously false? I mean, everything in the "Book of Heavenly Lumnaries" is a lie, even, as the saying goes, "the ands and thes". You can't just ignore that much patent rubbish and still acceptt he thing as holy writ.

Stick to the Canon. The real truth.

FredVB said:

Genesis itself speaks of the giants, with the term nephilim. It is not peculiar to 1 Enoch. I think that new testament passages would not make reference to passages of 1 Enoch if it was not anything of Scripture, with Jesus saying to Sadducees that they knew not the scriptures for not knowing the angels in heaven do not marry, which refers to a passage in 1 Enoch and no other passages that I know were ever found.

Click to expand...

This argument is dispensed with in just 1 minute by the Youtuber Inspiring Philosophy:

But if people would prefer a somewhat more a text version in my own words, I'll explain the issues and why there is little reason to believe that Matthew 22:23-33 is in any way a reference to Enoch.

For easy reference, here's what it is (NASB):

23 On that day some Sadducees (who say there is no resurrection) came to Jesus and questioned Him, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother as next of kin shall marry his wife, and raise up children for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us; and the first married and died, and having no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26 It was the same also with the second brother, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will she be? For they all had her in marriage.”

29 But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, since you do not understand the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.31 But regarding the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at His teaching.

And so the argument says (more or less) "Jesus said they didn't know the scriptures, and then says that thing about angels in heaven that's something that's like something in the Book of Enoch! That shows Jesus is referring to Enoch as scripture!"

Well, no. Yes, Jesus does refer to scripture. And we see a clear scriptural quote, which is when Jesus quotes Exodus 3:6. We have the scripture right there! We don't need to try to find some hidden scriptural reference to satisfy Jesus's mention of scripture when Jesus has it right there!

Further problems emerge. Jesus does not give any preface to Matthew 22:30 to indicate it is in any way a quote, as Jesus normally does. Compare, indeed, how just before the quote of Exodus 3:6, Jesus says "have you not read what was spoken to you by God". And what is said in Matthew 22:30 is not even a quote from Enoch; the Enoch passage supposedly being invoked is not the same. 1 Enoch 15:6-7 says:

6 But you were ⌈formerly⌉ spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. 7. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling.

One may notice the obvious fact Jesus's statement is not a quote from this.

So we have a statement that there is no reason to believe is a quote or reference to anything, and certainly isn't a quote from Enoch. So all one is left with is to argue that Jesus's statement was in agreement with Enoch... which doesn't suddenly mean the entire thing is canonical or accurate, all it would be saying is that Enoch happened to say something that was true.

So, dispense with Enoch as scriptures because there was not a quote from it...

That would dispense with a lot of books we acknowledge as part of the Bible. Maybe that is not such a good argument as you thought it was. I can dispense with apocrypha being scriptures as I find contradictions to scriptures in them, and internal inconsistencies. What is found for that in 1 Enoch? I am looking at it and yet not finding it myself. And about not being quoted, Enoch was quoted. Certainly by Jude, speaking of it as being from Enoch. And there is more than that passage used in the new testament though without Enoch being named. So why did Jesus even say that angels in heaven do not give themselves in marriage? Where was that from? Just special inside knowledge Jesus chose to use, this time? Where else does Jesus do that... with those not believing anyway? His whole point is that those Sadducees do not know scriptures that they should. Not a great time to mention a concept not from scriptures that would be his very special knowledge exclusively. I am not buying that. If I should, you have much more explaining to do. Let's even look at what is said in 1 Enoch.

I do see the same such arguments that Jesus did not speak the name of God, that was to always be remembered, to his disciples. I'm getting familiar with these ways from others, maybe this is meant for me, to know their ways and recognize them for what they are.

FredVB said:

So, dispense with Enoch as scriptures because there was not a quote from it...

Click to expand...

How about we chuck it because large portions of it are demonstrably false? How much of any writing can be complete rubbish and it still be considered holy writ? I think that threshold ought to be pretty low. "Enoch" contains far more obvious made-up-from-whole-cloth fiction for me to consider it anything but an interesting old book. The Word of God? Not even close. Is there some stuff in it that's true? Probably; the writer(s) of Enoch probably had at least a nodding acquaintance with the Hebrew scriptures. So what? The Quran and the Book of Mormon both contain information that agrees with (and almost certainly came from) Holy Scripture. Should we embrace them as the Word of God as well? I'll pass.

FredVB said:

I can dispense with apocrypha being scriptures as I find contradictions to scriptures in them, and internal inconsistencies. What is found for that in 1 Enoch?

Click to expand...

THe entire "BooK of Heavenly Luminaries" is complete fiction, and not even vaguely credible. That massive glob of leaven leavens the whole lump as far as I'm conrned.

FredVB said:

So, dispense with Enoch as scriptures because there was not a quote from it...

Click to expand...

I never argued "Enoch isn't scripture because there wasn't a quote from it in Matthew." I argued that one cannot try to use Matthew 22 to argue for it being scripture because it isn't being cited at all. The whole argument is "Jesus refers to the scriptures, then to Enoch, showing it's scripture" except Jesus never gives any quote from Enoch.

I dispense with the argument that there was a quote from 1 Enoch in Matthew 22 because there was not a quote from it.

FredVB said:

That would dispense with a lot of books we acknowledge as part of the Bible. Maybe that is not such a good argument as you thought it was.

Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't the argument I made, so..

FredVB said:

I can dispense with apocrypha being scriptures as I find contradictions to scriptures in them, and internal inconsistencies. What is found for that in 1 Enoch? I am looking at it and yet not finding it myself.

Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't trying to argue anything about contradictions or inconsistencies, but still, various people have pointed to what they consider to be contradictions or inconsistencies in 1 Enoch; given his posts in this topic, I expect Jipsah would probably be happy to point to what he considers examples.

FredVB said:

And about not being quoted, Enoch was quoted. Certainly by Jude, speaking of it as being from Enoch.

Click to expand...

You didn't mention Jude in your post, so this is criticizing me for not responding to an argument you didn't make.

FredVB said:

And there is more than that passage used in the new testament though without Enoch being named. So why did Jesus even say that angels in heaven do not give themselves in marriage? Where was that from? Just special inside knowledge Jesus chose to use, this time?

Click to expand...

Hardly special inside knowledge; this was a belief by some Jews at that period, which presumably made its way into 1 Enoch on that basis. But there is no reason to believe that Jesus's statement was any reference to Enoch as scripture given that (1) Jesus doesn't introduce it in the way Jesus introduces scripture on essentially every other occasion, (2) it isn't a quote from Enoch anyway, and (3) the actual scriptural quote Jesus gives is from Exodus 3:6.

FredVB said:

Where else does Jesus do that... with those not believing anyway?

Click to expand...

As noted, there is no need for "special inside knowledge" for this--unless that special inside knowledge refers to knowing which of the various Jewish beliefs were correct.

However, even if it was indeed special insider knowledge of what is true, the question was posed to Jesus, and Jesus answered it. Even when non-believers posed questions to Jesus, Jesus would normally answer them. There's an example of such a thing just before the incident with the Sadducees, where the Pharisees try to do a similar "gotcha!" question to Jesus about whether to pay the imperial tax, to which Jesus gives the famous "render under Caesar what is Caesar's" quote.

FredVB said:

His whole point is that those Sadducees do not know scriptures that they should. Not a great time to mention a concept not from scriptures that would be his very special knowledge exclusively. I am not buying that.

Click to expand...

Jesus's reference to them being ignorant of the scriptures was, presumably, in reference to their denial of resurrection, which Jesus goes on to defend by citing Exodus 3:6 (the actual scripture cited). This seems like a bit of an odd choice to cite when there appear to be stronger verses, but there is evidence the Sadducees considered only the Pentateuch (Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy/Numbers) to be scripture, in which case Jesus obviously wasn't going to get anywhere citing something from outside of those. Which only goes to show it would be very odd for Jesus to try to cite 1 Enoch as evidence for something to the Sadducees, as they presumably didn't accept it.