Dead sea scrolls//Book of Enoch//other ancient texts

[Radagast]

Agreed, Enoch was most certainly a God fearing man. The book isn't accepted, but I don't really understand why...

Because the book of Enoch that exists today was certainly not written by Enoch.

 

[JM]

Because the book of Enoch that exists today was certainly not written by Enoch.

Authorship isn't the issue Rad. We cannot be certain who wrote a few books in the NT and that doesn't matter. R. C. Sproul once said he thought 1 Clement could be scripture but was sure he had enough to work with. Maybe Enoch is scripture? We still have enough to work with.

This is the edition I own and have studied. I recommend it. Very thorough with detailed footnotes.

 

[Radagast]

Authorship isn't the issue Rad.

It certainly is. Enoch didn't write the "Book of Enoch." Neither did anybody from his time.

Something about Enoch is quoted in the NT, but that (Greek) work has been lost. The present-day "Books of Enoch" are later works of dubious provenance. In places, they are heretical.

R. C. Sproul once said he thought 1 Clement could be scripture but was sure he had enough to work with.

I believe you're misrepresenting what R. C. Sproul said. He explains quite clearly in his writings why 1 Clement is not Scripture.

 

[JM]

It certainly is. Enoch didn't write the "Book of Enoch." Neither did anybody from his time.

Something about Enoch is quoted in the NT, but that (Greek) work has been lost. The present-day "Books of Enoch" are later works of dubious provenance. In places, they are heretical.

You missed the point I was making, knowing who the author is, doesn't make it canon.

I believe you're misrepresenting what R. C. Sproul said. He explains quite clearly in his writings why 1 Clement is not Scripture.

No, I'm not misrepresenting Sproul. The lecture is now locked so I cannot be certain which one he said it in but I'll give you the links if you wish to pursue it. I'll link another site where the author clearly understood Sproul the same way I did...that the canon is a "fallible collection of infallible books." It is somewhere around that statement that Sproul mentions 1 Clement.

The Canon of Scripture by R.C. Sproul

Inspiration and the Canon of Scripture by R.C. Sproul

"To skirt the issue, Sproul has to argue that the canon is only a fallible collection of infallible books." Source

 

[JM]

1 Enoch is riddle with issues but it was influential.

The Book of Enoch as the Background to 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude

 

[Radagast]

No, I'm not misrepresenting Sproul.

I'm going by what Sproul said in his published books, rather than by someone's fallible memory of a lecture.

"In fact, only two or three books that were not included ever had real consideration. These were 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Didache. These books were not included in the canon of Scripture because they were not written by apostles, and the writers themselves acknowledged that their authority was subordinate to the apostles." -- R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, page 22.

Sproul is, of course, correct here. The New Testament books we have are either by apostles or by people closely associated with apostles, like Luke/Paul or Mark/Peter.

 

[JM]

I'm going by what Sproul said in his published books, rather than by someone's fallible memory of a lecture.

"In fact, only two or three books that were not included ever had real consideration. These were 1 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, and The Didache. These books were not included in the canon of Scripture because they were not written by apostles, and the writers themselves acknowledged that their authority was subordinate to the apostles." -- R. C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, page 22.

Sproul is, of course, correct here. The New Testament books we have are either by apostles or by people closely associated with apostles, like Luke/Paul or Mark/Peter.

His opinion changed or he was two faced. My point stands. The canon is a fallible collection of infallible books.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[sdowney717]

in response to he-man. I'am curious about this quote though. " And no one hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended out of heaven, the Son of man. "

because in Hebrews 11:5 it says "By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was commended as having pleased God."
This is what is so interesting about Enoch to me.

up until that time no man had ascended into heaven.
Jesus did ascend into heaven after He went to Hell after His Crucifixion and preached to the spirits in prison.
It says He led captivity (the righteous OT saints in paradise, a part of hell, Sheol, the place of the dead), captive when He ascended, so they went up with Him at His ascension being a part of the cloud in Acts 1.

refer to Ephesians 4
7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore He says:

“When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also [d]first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

 

[sdowney717]

In other words, no one is ascending into heaven without Christ.