The Book of Enoch

[SummaScriptura]

Also from Wiki, "Origen"
"Origen is regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as a Church Father, but not a Saint.[74]"
"In Origen the Christian Church had its first theologian."
(Sorry, irrelevant to the thread about "Enoch", but I like to correct the record, in which the East thinks that the 5th Ecumenical Council denounced Origen three centuries after his death. Very tangled scholarship about this due to inadequate documentation in Justinian's era.)

Not a saint, huh?

That's too bad. I woulda liked to talk to him in heaven.

 

[Cappadocious]

"In Origen the Christian Church had its first theologian."

I'm a big Origen fan but this is simply not true.

 

[prodromos]

Not a saint, huh?

That's too bad. I woulda liked to talk to him in heaven.

Well, no one on this side of the last judgement is in a position to declare that Origen won't be found on Christ's right hand on the last day. You may get to have that chat yet.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Well, no one on this side of the last judgement is in a position to declare that Origen won't be found on Christ's right hand on the last day. You may get to have that chat yet.

Oh, that makes perfect sense...

No one can say he won't make it, but we can declare he wasn't a saint!?

(This is getting too weird. We need to start a thread about church doctrine trumping Scripture.)

 

[Open Heart]

Also from Wiki, "Origen"
"Origen is regarded by the Roman Catholic Church as a Church Father, but not a Saint.[74]"
"In Origen the Christian Church had its first theologian."
(Sorry, irrelevant to the thread about "Enoch", but I like to correct the record, in which the East thinks that the 5th Ecumenical Council denounced Origen three centuries after his death. Very tangled scholarship about this due to inadequate documentation in Justinian's era.)

It was not Origen that was denounced, but Origenism, a theology that was only loosely based on what Origen taught but which went considerably further than the man himself. Origen was not a heretic.

http://newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

 

[prodromos]

Oh, that makes perfect sense...

No one can say he won't make it, but we can declare he wasn't a saint!?

The Church only declares as Saints, those people who God reveals to be especially blessed, usually because miracles tend to abound in association with their relics.

 

[Open Heart]

Oh, that makes perfect sense...

No one can say he won't make it, but we can declare he wasn't a saint!?

(This is getting too weird. We need to start a thread about church doctrine trumping Scripture.)

Actually the Church can declare that a person IS a saint. They can't by silence say a person is not a saint. There are scads of saints that are not declared Saints if you know what I mean.

 

[Korah]

I'm a big Origen fan but this is simply not true.

So you say someone preceded Origen as the first Christian theologian (his mentor, Clement of Alexandria, who was more of a philosopher? Tertullian, the heretic?). Or Origen was too much the philosopher and textual critic to rate as a theologian, so the first was not until Augustine?

 

[Cappadocious]

So you say someone preceded Origen as the first Christian theologian (his mentor, Clement of Alexandria, who was more of a philosopher? Tertullian, the heretic?)

St. John, St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus preceded him.

As an aside, I am not a fan of Clement of Alexandria.

 

[Korah]

Higher Criticism might question how much St. John wrote (I myself prefer Nicodemus as the author of Johnannine theology) and as for the other two asking for the first GREAT Christian theologian would put us back to Origen. We don't have much written by Justin Martyr to judge by. I'm not an expert on St. Irenaeus, but the quality of his scholarship is questioned by some.
EDITED TO ADD:
More recently Irenaeus"s scholarship has come to be better regarded--the Nag Hammadi Library supports some of his disputed claims. Wiki rates him as "one of the great theologians"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

 

[Cappadocious]

Higher Criticism might question how much St. John wrote (I myself prefer Nicodemus as the author of Johnannine theology)

John holds together Johannine Theology, regardless of individual authorship.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Unfortunately, it is most emphatically not true. For instance, the "Book of the Courses of Heavenly Luminaries" purported based on information given the writer of Enoch by an angel named Uriel offers wonderfully imaginative descriptions of the sun and moon, their sizes and compositions, and their behavior. Pretty good stuff from the perspective of a person who believes in geocentric universe and a flat earth, but absolutely nothing whatever to do with reality. We would expect the angel who was supposedly providing the information to "Enoch" to hqve known better even if "Enoch"

In the era before the flood, civilizations which existed at an earlier time than that when we are told mankind began the first cities, built the many megaliths which dot our planet. Almost all of these are singularly focused on making the operations of the sun, moon and stars predictable. In the Book of Enoch, Uriel helps Enoch understand enough about this in written form to make the signs and stars usable for future generations to predict the times of the festivals of the years. In order to make this possible, the perspective in the Book of the Luminaries is earthbound, or else it would have been useless to future generations.

In 78:3, Enoch writes about the sun and moon and states something you've mocked in other posts. He writes, "the size of the circumference of both is alike".

From man’s terrestrial perspective, both the sun and moon appear to be the same size. For two minutes during 2017's solar eclipse, viewers in the USA could safely look directly at the sun’s corona while the moon neatly covered the totality of the disk of the sun.

In terms of objective size, 50 moons could fit in the earth, 1.3 million earths could fit in the sun. Therefore, 65,000,000 moons could fit in the sun. That modern man can accurately ascertain the size of the sun and moon does not serve to discount the value of Enoch's observation, but rather underscores the gravity of his claim. When one considers that our moon is dwarfed by the size of the sun, and that both have been set at the precise distance from our planet which enables the moon to exactly cover the face of the sun is mind boggling and points to the universe's intelligent design.

 

[DeaconDean]

Enoch directs contradicts the scriptures.

You don't believe me?

Read for yourself:

"They see that every work of God is invariable in the period of its appearance. They behold summer and winter: perceiving that the whole earth is full of water; and that the cloud, the dew, and the rain refresh it." -1 Enoch 3:3

Source

There are two things wrong with this passage of Enoch.

1) There are no mention of seasons (i.e.: summer and winter) until after the flood in the scriptures. (Cf. Gen. 8:22; "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.")

2) There was no rain, hear that, NO RAIN in scripture, until after the flood. In fact, scripture specifically tells us "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Cf. Gen. 2:6)

I have also been told rather recently that "Eden" the garden Adam and Eve was planted in, was not on earth. Since Eden has at the center, the Tree of Life, Revelation says the Tree of Life is in heaven, ergo, the Garden of Eden was in heaven. All this comes from reading Enoch.

Enoch was raptured to heaven, and the first use of the word in Torah was when God "took" a rib bone from Adam and built an "ishyah", for him, a female Adam person.
You can search out the use of the word for yourself, and learn: Genesis 1:1 (KJV)
God raptured/took from one place to another the firstborn in Adam, so as to rule from heaven which is where Paradise is, and there was free going in and out before the fall, at which time Adam was "cast down to earth below" and forbidden to return by any means in that defiled flesh, lest he eat of the Tree of Life and be defiled in that flesh forever -and then could never have been redeemed and changed to the Glory body (and only fit to be an undying worm in that body, in the Lake of Fire, forever]...which is why Adam got cast down from the third heaven, where Paradise is, as the Bible teaches.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

St. John, St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus preceded him.

As an aside, I am not a fan of Clement of Alexandria.

People often quote Jude quoting from Enoch to give evidence/support that it should be included in the canon.

Paul often used Greek poetry and it is recorded in scripture. Should we include those works Paul quoted, rather, reworded from?

Clement of Alexandria also uses the illustration from Greek mythology of the Phoenix for our resurrection. (cf. 1 Clement 25)

My point is, if you read Enoch, I have, read it carefully. It can lead you down a path that may have you arguing against scripture.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Open Heart]

Enoch directs contradicts the scriptures.

You don't believe me?

Read for yourself:

"They see that every work of God is invariable in the period of its appearance. They behold summer and winter: perceiving that the whole earth is full of water; and that the cloud, the dew, and the rain refresh it." -1 Enoch 3:3

Source

There are two things wrong with this passage of Enoch.

1) There are no mention of seasons (i.e.: summer and winter) until after the flood in the scriptures. (Cf. Gen. 8:22; "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.")

2) There was no rain, hear that, NO RAIN in scripture, until after the flood. In fact, scripture specifically tells us "there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground." (Cf. Gen. 2:6)

I have also been told rather recently that "Eden" the garden Adam and Eve was planted in, was not on earth. Since Eden has at the center, the Tree of Life, Revelation says the Tree of Life is in heaven, ergo, the Garden of Eden was in heaven. All this comes from reading Enoch.



God Bless

Till all are one.

This is so full of fallacies that I don't know where to start. I don't accept the book of Enoch, but not for any of these reasons.

 

[DeaconDean]

This is so full of fallacies that I don't know where to start.

That was a well thought out post you put in the thread on the Reformation. Just wanted to say that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

This is so full of fallacies that I don't know where to start. I don't accept the book of Enoch, but not for any of these reasons.

Me? Or Enoch?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Open Heart]

Me? Or Enoch?

God Bless

Till all are one.

Your post, your arguments. Actually you made the same argument twice. Your argument was as follows.

A. Genesis doesn't mention X before the flood.
B. If it isn't mentioned, it didn't happen.
C. Enoch says it happened before the flood.
D. Since Enoch contradicts "Genesis", Enoch is wrong.

Your point B is a fallacy. Just because something is not recorded is not the same thing as saying it didn't happen. It can, for example, mean that it happened but it wasn't worth mentioning.

This means that your conclusion D is flawed, since "Genesis" is being defined incorrectly, based on a fallacy.

 

[DeaconDean]

Your post, your arguments. Actually you made the same argument twice. Your argument was as follows.

A. Genesis doesn't mention X before the flood.
B. If it isn't mentioned, it didn't happen.
C. Enoch says it happened before the flood.
D. Since Enoch contradicts "Genesis", Enoch is wrong.

Your point B is a fallacy. Just because something is not recorded is not the same thing as saying it didn't happen. It can, for example, mean that it happened but it wasn't worth mentioning.

This means that your conclusion D is flawed, since "Genesis" is being defined incorrectly, based on a fallacy.

The flood happened some 1000 years after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden. We are told it did not rain prior to the flood (cf. Gen. 2:8)

Yet Enoch says it did. (cf. 1 Enoch 3:3)

Now there are only 2 options here.

1. Either Enoch is correct and it did "rain" prior to the flood, thus rendering scriptures unreliable.
2. Or, scriptures are correct, and Enoch is in error.

Now you an say what you want about my logic, but I provided scriptures from both the Bible and Enoch.

And they contradict each other.

And that, friend, is a fact!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Open Heart]

That was a well thought out post you put in the thread on the Reformation. Just wanted to say that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I should have taken the time to explain what your fallacy was the first time around. I'm not sure why I didn't, but I think it was unkind of me. Sorry.