bibles with apocrypha

[Lollerskates]

Reread the gospels, and prophets. Then read ALL of Enoch. The prophets and gospels glean from his books. Enoch has everything from the Law of Moses before they were laws of Moses (should be proof the Law has always been, never done away with,) to explanation of the angels mating with humans (not the sons of Seth) - even naming the angels and their specific offenses, to the resurrection and reign of Christ. People reject Enoch because of his description of Penuel, and his role in being set up over repented of those who inherit eternal life. Or, because the Most High is named Lord of Spirits.

It does not say Penuel was THE One who redeems, or grants repentance, or even eternal life. It says he is set over it. Spiritual desk duty, if you want to think lowly.

The Lord of Spirits is a name. Aren't we and the hosts of heaven spirits? Did He not breathe the breath of life into us to make us a living soul? Do we not get our spirits refreshed to perfection at resurrection, or do we not have a spirit "on loan" called the Holy Spirit" until then? Being the Most High of everything, the Lord of spirits is another name for God in Enoch.

ROME changed the canon, and removed Enoch in the 4th century

 

[GraceSeeker]

Reread the gospels, and prophets. Then read ALL of Enoch. The prophets and gospels glean from his books.

When was Enoch written?

 

[Lollerskates]

When was Enoch written?

Before the Gospels; it was part of the collection of books for both Hebrews and early Christians who fled Rome. And, as I said, it was still part of the "canon" until the 4th century - considered inspired.

As far as date... no one can be sure, not even almighty "science," and it's perfect dating methods.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Before the Gospels; it was part of the collection of books for both Hebrews and early Christians who fled Rome. And, as I said, it was still part of the "canon" until the 4th century - considered inspired.

As far as date... no one can be sure, not even almighty "science," and it's perfect dating methods.

Before the Gospels, yes. But, was it written before the prophets also?

 

[Lollerskates]

Before the Gospels, yes. But, was it written before the prophets also?

I don't know. Written anything in Hebrew culture is hardly a measure of authenticity, as it began as an oral tradition. Remember (if you have read) from Enoch that among other atrocities of premature "progress and advancement," Penemue taught rebellious humans how to write with ink. Seems silly as to think of that in our supremely better world, but it points to the fact that most of the prophets' writings even were not written by them. In other words, a scribe or family member recorded the events.

Also, keep in mind Enoch was antediluvian, and the prophets were not. So, if they did not glean from whatever Noah recorded, it may have been the Holy Spirit saying the same thing to them. Unless Noah kept the recordings, they would have been destroyed.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Unless Noah kept the recordings, they would have been destroyed.

So, you're saying that unless Noah kept the recordings, then the book of Enoch that we have today would not be originial to Enoch at all.

 

[Lollerskates]

So, you're saying that unless Noah kept the recordings, then the book of Enoch that we have today would not be originial to Enoch at all.

I don't think I ever said that.

What I did say is Hebrew was an oral tradition first, and writing anything was a poor indicator of authenticity since they did not do it for record. This tradition was kept up to the Gospels; the titular gospels were not all written by the authors of subject speaking. Paul had scribes. Did Moses write the pentateuch? Yet, we take those books on faithful inspiration - according to our individual discernment and responsibility for our souls. Enoch should be done the same way, especially if it is still in bible canons, and was once considered inspired.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Before the Gospels; it was part of the collection of books for both Hebrews and early Christians who fled Rome. And, as I said, it was still part of the "canon" until the 4th century - considered inspired.

As far as date... no one can be sure, not even almighty "science," and it's perfect dating methods.

That simply isn't true, and no genuine scholar of 1 Enoch would agree with you.

 

[Lollerskates]

That simply isn't true, and no genuine scholar of 1 Enoch would agree with you.

Are scholars human?

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GraceSeeker]

I don't think I ever said that.

You just said it in the very post I quoted: http://www.christianforums.com/t7834861/#post66129223. Maybe you're not fully aware of some of the things you seem to be saying.


Anyway, you said also that the prophets and the Gospel were dependent on Enoch, "gleaned from his books" is the way you worded it. Now, I've never even attempted to discuss the Gospels with you, only the dating of Enoch, which as a written book appears on the scene after the OT prophets appear. I have no idea how long the stories found in Enoch were part of the oral tradition, and neither do you or anyone else. Enoch, like Job, could have been a story told for a millennium prior to being written down. But, as a written document the prophets proceed it and thus I seriously doubt your original assertion that "The prophets ... glean from his [Enoch's] books."

 

[Lollerskates]

You just said it in the very post I quoted: http://www.christianforums.com/t7834861/#post66129223. Maybe you're not fully aware of some of the things you seem to be saying.

So, if they did not glean from whatever Noah recorded, it may have been the Holy Spirit saying the same thing to them. Unless Noah kept the recordings, they would have been destroyed.

I didn't say anything about the originality and authenticity of Enoch IF Noah kept or didn't keep them. In fact, I vehemently spoke about how most of the "authors" of the books in the bible are not the original authors (e.g. Moses.) That is, as I said, because Hebrew was an oral tradition with little regard for recording every single thing on scroll or paper. Enoch told Lamech and Noah things and they wrote it down. Simple.

Anyway, you said also that the prophets and the Gospel were dependent on Enoch, "gleaned from his books" is the way you worded it.

I wrote it that way because that is exactly what I meant. I did not say dependent because I dont think they were dependent on Enoch.

Now, I've never even attempted to discuss the Gospels with you, only the dating of Enoch, which as a written book appears on the scene after the OT prophets appear. I have no idea how long the stories found in Enoch were part of the oral tradition, and neither do you or anyone else. Enoch, like Job, could have been a story told for a millennium prior to being written down. But, as a written document the prophets proceed it and thus I seriously doubt your original assertion that "The prophets ... glean from his [Enoch's] books."

Then you haven't read Enoch, or compared the prophets and their language in their books. And, FYI first written document does not mean first overall. That is the argument people make with Gilgamesh: oldest record found therefore the biblical flood stole it.

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Are scholars human?

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, and so are you. But I don't recall you having a Ph.D. in Semitics or early Judeo-Christian studies.

 

[Lollerskates]

Yes, and so are you. But I don't recall you having a Ph.D. in Semitics or early Judeo-Christian studies.

Not in Semitics, no. But, having a Ph.D. in something does not make you an authority and arbiter for thought and conclusion in that field. I am responsible for my own salvation, and I cannot tell God, "well, a Ph.D. told me this is what was true" because s/he is not responsible for my intelligence or ignorance.

As a human, we are capable of making mistakes. And, as a human, I have the option of accepting or rejecting what some other human says - no matter their credentials. Many, many academic scholars have been sorely wrong on very important life issues. And, they will continue to be. I choose to research extensively my own questions, and make a decision of my own. I do not listen to someone, or read something and then regurgitate it as if it was my own idea.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Not in Semitics, no. But, having a Ph.D. in something does not make you an authority and arbiter for thought and conclusion in that field. I am responsible for my own salvation, and I cannot tell God, "well, a Ph.D. told me this is what was true" because s/he is not responsible for my intelligence or ignorance.

As a human, we are capable of making mistakes. And, as a human, I have the option of accepting or rejecting what some other human says - no matter their credentials. Many, many academic scholars have been sorely wrong on very important life issues. And, they will continue to be. I choose to research extensively my own questions, and make a decision of my own. I do not listen to someone, or read something and then regurgitate it as if it was my own idea.

Who said anything about salvation? This is a matter of a question open to academic evaluation- the dating of an ancient text, which is dependent upon readings within that text that fit within particular cultural settings. That's something certain people are trained to do, and the overwhelming, indeed, universal consensus is that 1 Enoch is a pseudepigraphal text of the Second Temple Period.

I'm willing to bet you don't even have the linguistic tools to make that kind of evaluation, let alone the critical or analytical tools. Surprise me. How's your Greek?

 

[GraceSeeker]

I didn't say anything about the originality and authenticity of Enoch IF Noah kept or didn't keep them. In fact, I vehemently spoke about how most of the "authors" of the books in the bible are not the original authors (e.g. Moses.) That is, as I said, because Hebrew was an oral tradition with little regard for recording every single thing on scroll or paper. Enoch told Lamech and Noah things and they wrote it down. Simple.




I wrote it that way because that is exactly what I meant. I did not say dependent because I dont think they were dependent on Enoch.



Then you haven't read Enoch, or compared the prophets and their language in their books. And, FYI first written document does not mean first overall. That is the argument people make with Gilgamesh: oldest record found therefore the biblical flood stole it.

Book of Enoch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And now you're talking circles. If the prophets gleaned from Enoch, then Enoch had to be available to them. But, given that the dating of Enoch is later than the dating of the Prophets that becomes a rather hard sell.

You also tried to imply, though you now seem to be seeking to retreat from it, that Enoch himself could have been the author of Enoch. That such a book could have survived the flood (either by mean of Noah or otherwise) I find highly doubtful.

The best answer to its appearance is that was created in the intertestamental period by an unknown author(s) who were perhaps compilers of oral traditions existing in their day. But, if this is so, then no prophets were gleaning anything from it.

As for similarities between it and the Gospel, this does not mean that the Gospel writers were gleaning from Enoch either. It could be that Jesus himself, familiar with the literature and folk stories of his day, himself made allusion to these concepts and used them just as he did the physical objects and habits of the culture where his audience lived as a means by which he sought to communicate the nature of the Kingdom of God to them.

 

[Lollerskates]

And now you're talking circles. If the prophets gleaned from Enoch, then Enoch had to be available to them. But, given that the dating of Enoch is later than the dating of the Prophets that becomes a rather hard sell.

Did you miss where I said that even if recorded Enoch wasn't available, that the prophets AND Enoch got it from the same holy spirit? And, I repeatedly said Noah and Lamech were the ones who were told, and recorded Enoch's words - not Enoch.

You also tried to imply, though you now seem to be seeking to retreat from it, that Enoch himself could have been the author of Enoch. That such a book could have survived the flood (either by mean of Noah or otherwise) I find highly doubtful.

I am not retreating; I never said Enoch was the author. In fact, I specifically said Noah and Lamech may have been the recorders, and compared the authorship of Enoch to the authorship of the Books of "Moses," which he did not write himself.

And, you are convinced animals, and a wooden boat could survive the flood, but Noah who was capable of building an oceanliner was incapable of preserving texts? I find THAT doubtful.

The best answer to its appearance is that was created in the intertestamental period by an unknown author(s) who were perhaps compilers of oral traditions existing in their day. But, if this is so, then no prophets were gleaning anything from it.

MOST ALL of the biblical books fit that category. As I said, Moses did not write the pentateuch. The gospels were not written by the titular authors. Paul had scribes. It doesn't mean no one gleaned; it is the same Word of God, which is why it is repetitive. The texts were still existent, and the oral tradition was even more existent, as oral history was more important that writing. So, either way, the words of Enoch trickled down to all the Hebrews in one way or another - regardless of the existence of a text. That is the point.

As for similarities between it and the Gospel, this does not mean that the Gospel writers were gleaning from Enoch either. It could be that Jesus himself, familiar with the literature and folk stories of his day, himself made allusion to these concepts and used them just as he did the physical objects and habits of the culture where his audience lived as a means by which he sought to communicate the nature of the Kingdom of God to them.

Christ and Jude refer to Enoch. There are scriptures in the OT and NT that are almost verbatim in Enoch. Christ communicated to all of His people through the Word of God. I don't understand why it is so offensive the prophets "glean" from Enoch, or Lamech, or Methuselah, or Noah. There is nothing new under the sun; you would think one of scores of billions of people who lived on this planet that actually got "caught up" would be at least entertainable. Indeed, as I said before, Enoch was part of canon, until it wasnt. Revelation was considered as "uninspired" as Enoch, until it wasnt. You don't see a problem with that?

And, if it is good enough for Ethiopians - and whomever else escaped Rome and its unity of Church and State - then I will entertain it for study, and make my own decision. No scholars, no popes, no bishops...

 

[Lollerskates]

Who said anything about salvation? This is a matter of a question open to academic evaluation- the dating of an ancient text, which is dependent upon readings within that text that fit within particular cultural settings. That's something certain people are trained to do, and the overwhelming, indeed, universal consensus is that 1 Enoch is a pseudepigraphal text of the Second Temple Period.

I did.

It is a matter of salvation when a once inspired text is considered uninspired by a group of "academic" theists on a council. No one determines what is inspired for me except me, because I am responsible for my soul. So, as I said God will look at me like I was foolish if I told Him, "but, but, but... the council determined this wasn't your word!" I am a human. And, I can research for myself, and discern for myself. All humans should, but many do not.

I am a scientist, so I am well aware of how "going against the standard of scholars" can make someone look. I don't care; scholars and lay persons are all the same humans, capable of error even after decades of arduous research. I am not going to waste time abdicating my spiritual individuality to a bunch of other humans. Do you think Christ would bow down for scholars, or would He discern them for what they are, and if necessary whip them out of their hypocritical houses of exaltation?

I'm willing to bet you don't even have the linguistic tools to make that kind of evaluation, let alone the critical or analytical tools. Surprise me. How's your Greek?

Oh I see, a measuring contest. I am extremely confident in my ACADEMIC endowment.

I read and understand Greek. (Scientists know the alphabet by heart, and my research allows me to understand context, culture and syntax.)

I am dyslexic, so Hebrew works well for me.

I speak Spanish and Japanese.

I can read and speak Latin.

I wrote a thesis; countless papers.

And, that is just a testament to my linguistic tools to make any evaluation.

I know you just asked about my Greek, but I figure since we are dealing with Christianity, Hebrew, and the [Catholic] church, and since you are a betting man, I wanted to cover all bases. But, I am not playing games of intellect with you in order to vindicate myself to you or anyone else. You take me at my word as I do you, or you can not. Simple; I am not doing gymnastics.

 

[GraceSeeker]

And, if it is good enough for Ethiopians - and whomever else escaped Rome and its unity of Church and State - then I will entertain it for study, and make my own decision. No scholars, no popes, no bishops...

I don't care about whether Enoch is part of the canon for Ethiopians or not. Every group can create their own canon to their hearts content. What is accepted as one's canon is up to that group, or in your case individual.

What I continue to dispute is the nature of the connection you claim exists between the OT prophets and Enoch. If you want to prove it, let's quit messing up this thread which was not about Enoch, and have you start a new thread where you can post the related passages that manifest the connection you say is there.

 

[Lollerskates]

I don't care about whether Enoch is part of the canon for Ethiopians or not.

I know you dont.

Every group can create their own canon to their hearts content. What is accepted as one's canon is up to that group, or in your case individual.

Which is why there are scores of denominations in a faith that is supposed to be UNITY.

What I continue to dispute is the nature of the connection you claim exists between the OT prophets and Enoch. If you want to prove it, let's quit messing up this thread which was not about Enoch, and have you start a new thread where you can post the related passages that manifest the connection you say is there.

This is made a bigger deal than it actually is. Who is older: Enoch or the prophets? You act like grandfather's do not talk to their grandsons, and those grandsons do not use that. And, as I said, the same holy spirit tells Enoch the same things as He told the prophets. Enoch was so "right" for his time that he was taken up, yet his words (possibly recorded by Lamech and/or Noah) are incredulous. Okay.

Look up the Catholic Church History, why they removed the book as inspired, why the very easily mistaken for astrological alchemy Revelation was considered inspired, after it was considered uninspired. See, the rabbit hole goes very deep; pedestrian Christianity is a fault of many believers. "My people shall be destroyed for lack of knowledge..." I am not going into details, as the minutia of this argument is more of a problem than the context, and overall point.

Is there a reason you responded to only a portion of what I posted?

 

[SummaScriptura]

That simply isn't true, and no genuine scholar of 1 Enoch would agree with you.

You are wrong about this and should do a little reading.