Enoch

[SummaScriptura]

Hi Deacon Dean;
I had forgotten that this thread existed and only remembered it when the email popped up that someone had posted here.
Do you mind if we examine your “facts”, one at a time for both accuracy and historical relevance?
For example, in your “fact” number one, you remind us that “The book of Enoch is not included in any Protestant version of the bible.”
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make by saying an early common era judao-christian text is not found in a protestant bible created fifteen centuries later. You seem to be trying to mix values and text from two entirely differing eras to try to make a point. We are speaking HISTORICALLY, and thus of a time before any popular version of any of the several christian canons had been suggested.
For example; NONE of the non synoptic books were included in marcion’s canon (and even that text was severely curtailed). One can use this fact to conclude that NO biblical text outside the synoptic book has sacred value and all who included them in subsequent canons were wrong in doing so.
Barnabas and hermas are not in “modern” western bibles though they are obviously included in 4-5th century sinaiticus, (one of the 4-5 most important uncials ever discovered). Barnabas and Hermas may not be in your bible, nor sacred to you, but they were in their bible and such text were sacred to the early christians who read the bibles that included them.
The early Judao-Christians had their own traditions and beliefs regarding the awaited messiah and the early texts they read form an important periscope into their understanding of the promised atonement of the Christ. To understand how such traditions and teachings were understood by the earliest judao-christians tells us much about what early christianity was like and how they understood so many of the doctrines the later christianities in their various forms started squabbling over ad nauseum.
The New Testament text makes use of and quotes from enochian literature such Quotes from enoch found in New Testament Jude (thus the protestants are reading from enoch when they read from new testament literature). The great apochyphologist Charles found over 128 quotes from Enoch in the New Testament (Thus when you are reading New Testament text, you ARE reading from enochian literature as well, you simply are unaware of where the quotes come from...).
So, if the protestants, 1500 years later no longer included enoch in their literature of belief , What is the relevance of this first point you are making to the literature of belief of the earliest Judao-Christians?
Clear
eivitzsiis

All good points.

 

[Clearly]

Summa Scriptura commented : “All good points.”

Thanks Summa : I think non-historians tend to offer negative “drive by” opinions regarding subjects without having historical data simply because certain bits of unfamiliar history make them uncomfortable in the same way that dogs bark at strangers. However, even correct facts need to be relevant before they take on specific historical meaning and significance and much of what Deacon Dean offers as “facts” are irrelevant and historically meaningless statements that have no connection to his intimated conclusion. For example: Deacon Dean has still not told us why he thinks his “fact” number one is relevant to the thread.

I also thought that you made a similarly wonderful logical point regarding Jpark’s foot-in-mouth desire to have the prophet Enoch shot because he wrote about the fallen angels, by which logic we must then shoot New Testament Jude as well since he refers to enoch and those same angels.

Must we then shoot Jesus and the apostles and others when they make references to or quote from Pre-New Testament texts and traditions unfamiliar to the non-historian Christians? Do we shoot all ancients who make references to early doctrines and traditions that we are ignorant of?

Thanks for pointing out the silliness of such logic.

Clearly
eivinefuwr