- Jun 6, 2014
- 3,049
- 1,770
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Don’t be so absurd.If he wasn't referencing written Enoch, are you implying he had an audio recording, or did he and Enoch have a chat over dinner?
Don’t be so absurd.
I voted no.
Jesus was before the world began. Enoch was not HIS source.
As a side note I think Paul's teaching on the resurrected body is cohesive with "like the angels of God"
The absurdity was stating he was referencing Enoch, but not written Enoch. My absurdity was just an extension of what I was responding to.
He has for the benefit of His audience stated on occasion, "Haven't you read.." but I don't think that is His first understanding. He was before Abraham was born. He is from above and spoke as one from above. His kingdom is not of this world and He ascended to where He was before. If I considered His source I would state the Father not any man.One can point to many places where Jesus referenced the OT writings in His teachings and responses. It was normal for Him to use other written sources.
I’ll have to look into this - this would definitely disqualify the book of Enoch.I believe the Book of Enoch states that Enoch is the messiah, which would make it far from canon.
How is that absurd? It doesn’t say he’s quoting the book of Enoch. I’m open to many different possibilities, but you don’t seem to be.
He has for the benefit of His audience stated on occasion, "Haven't you read.." but I don't think that is His first understanding. He was before Abraham was born. He is from above and spoke as one from above. His kingdom is not of this world and He ascended to where He was before. If I considered His source I would state the Father not any man.
Popular doesn't always equate to accurate.
The absurdity was stating he was referencing Enoch, but not written Enoch. My absurdity was just an extension of what I was responding to.
Jesus was speaking with the Sadducees and they only accepted the Pentateuch as scripture. So quoting from Psalms, Isaiah or even Enoch would have fallen on deaf ears because they would have rejected them all as scripture. This is why when Christ does quote scripture he quotes from the Pentateuch saying in v31 "have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?" Which is quite a creative way of supporting the resurrection in these books. Quoting however from anything else, especially Enoch, he would have been laughed at, instead, scripture tells us the Sadducees were silenced.Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered, “You are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead they will be like the angels of heaven."
I cannot find this quote, which expressly states that people will not marry, in the 66 books of the bible. I checked my NIV and NKJV and there was no footnote, strangely. Where did it come from and could it have been quoted from 1 Enoch? Jesus tells them they are mistaken for NOT understanding the scriptures, but which scriptures did Jesus have in mind when He told them about how things would be in future heaven with regard to marriage?
Below, there is no mention by any of these theologians where these scriptures of authority on the matter are to be found (I've read through them) and no mention is made of Jesus' source in the OT:
Matthew 22:29 - But Jesus answered... - Verse-by-Verse Commentary
Matthew 22:30 -
So let's see if it's true. So far I've found this verse which speaks on the matter—
http://scriptural-truth.com/images/BookOfEnoch.pdf
1 Enoch 51:4 And in those days the mountains will leap like rams, and the hills will skip like lambs satisfied with milk, and all will become Angels in Heaven.
—
So, is 1 Enoch canonical for this present day? Why or why not. I could be totally off-base in all this and I admit as much. I think it's worth exploring if anyone has any insight that'd be great. Anyone who's read 1 Enoch let us know what your thoughts are. I'm undecided. Probably not, but I'm open to suggestions.
God bless,
But, what are the implications?
I'm not Catholic.. but I agree that canon or not... that's up for debate. However, if it contradicts the books that are considered canonical... then I would take the accepted canon as the truth.When we consider this together with the Ethiopian Orthodox inclusion of the book in their canon, there is no doubt that 1 Enoch can be considered deuterocanonical (but I do think we should read it as the Ethiopians do, that is to say, defer to prevailing doctrine where the text appears to differ, due to the possibility of textual corruption).
We also really need to lose the idea that the Old Testament only has 22 books. The canon adopted for the Masoretic text was the basis of Rabinnical Jewish theology that postdated the resurrection of Christ, the evangelization of the nations by the Apostles, the destruction of the Temple, and later of most of Jerusalem following the failed revolt of the Jews in 130 AD, and other substantial events, as well as the schism between the early Christians and those Jews who did not accept Christ (it should always be remembered that many did; if you look at the membership of the various Christian denominations in the Middle East, you will find many people with Jewish last names or derivatives of Jewish last names, who believe they are descended from Jewish converts to the early Church).
This canon is of course entirely a legitimate work of Jewish theology, and is of interest to Christianity, just as the works of Josephus the great historian, Maimonides, a Yemeni Jew who was possibly the greatest philosopher of his era (truly formidable given the competiton in the form of brilliant Islamic philosophers such as Averroes, Avicenna, Al-Kwarizmi, and many others), the era immediately prior to the pre-Renaissance philosophical breakthrough in Christianity with Thomas Aquinas and Gregory of Palamas, and numerous other Jewish scholars and theologians, most recently the Karaite scholar Nehemiah Gordon.
However, given that the early Church did not use it, and neither did the 22 book Masoretic canon bind the liturgical traditions of the Anglicans, the various Roman Catholic liturgical rites, the Eastern Orthodox, and all of the Oriental Orthodox with the possible exception of the Syriac Orthodox (the Old Testament is not heavily used in Syriac Orthodox liturgy, and there are different variants of the Peshitta, which have different books), and given that even from a Sola Scriptura perspective there seem to be compelling references in the New Testament to these deuterocanonical or apocryphal Old Testament works, we ought to avail ourselves of them to the fullest extent possible, that being, that we do not read them in a manner that contradicts the existing doctrines of Catholic, by which I mean universal and normative, Christianity.
I think that they were made to live forever... However, God, being omniscient... knew that they would not follow His intended path, rebel, sin and being that He knew this would happen... History unfolded just as He knew it would.So this would mean that Adam and Eve were made to die, even before they ate the fruit! This seems to contradict popular teaching.
And, quite probable that he wrote this stuff down. Wouldn't you?Enoch Walked With God (Gen. 5:22)
The scripture says that he "walked with God
after he begat Methuselah three hundred years."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?