I never argued "Enoch isn't scripture because there wasn't a quote from it in Matthew." I argued that one cannot try to use Matthew 22 to argue for it being scripture because it isn't being cited at all. The whole argument is "Jesus refers to the scriptures, then to Enoch, showing it's scripture" except Jesus never gives any quote from Enoch.
I dispense with the argument that there was a quote from 1 Enoch in Matthew 22 because there was not a quote from it.
Well, it wasn't the argument I made, so..
Well, I wasn't trying to argue anything about contradictions or inconsistencies, but still, various people have pointed to what they consider to be contradictions or inconsistencies in 1 Enoch; given his posts in this topic, I expect Jipsah would probably be happy to point to what he considers examples.
You didn't mention Jude in your post, so this is criticizing me for not responding to an argument you didn't make.
Hardly special inside knowledge; this was a belief by some Jews at that period, which presumably made its way into 1 Enoch on that basis. But there is no reason to believe that Jesus's statement was any reference to Enoch as scripture given that (1) Jesus doesn't introduce it in the way Jesus introduces scripture on essentially every other occasion, (2) it isn't a quote from Enoch anyway, and (3) the actual scriptural quote Jesus gives is from Exodus 3:6.
As noted, there is no need for "special inside knowledge" for this--unless that special inside knowledge refers to knowing which of the various Jewish beliefs were correct.
However, even if it was indeed special insider knowledge of what is true, the question was posed to Jesus, and Jesus answered it. Even when non-believers posed questions to Jesus, Jesus would normally answer them. There's an example of such a thing just before the incident with the Sadducees, where the Pharisees try to do a similar "gotcha!" question to Jesus about whether to pay the imperial tax, to which Jesus gives the famous "render under Caesar what is Caesar's" quote.
Jesus's reference to them being ignorant of the scriptures was, presumably, in reference to their denial of resurrection, which Jesus goes on to defend by citing Exodus 3:6 (the actual scripture cited). This seems like a bit of an odd choice to cite when there appear to be stronger verses, but there is evidence the Sadducees considered only the Pentateuch (Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy/Numbers) to be scripture, in which case Jesus obviously wasn't going to get anywhere citing something from outside of those. Which only goes to show it would be very odd for Jesus to try to cite 1 Enoch as evidence for something to the Sadducees, as they presumably didn't accept it.
It wasn't sufficient for dismissing all of 1 Enoch, you had something to show Jesus referred to a passage in Exodus about God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that made his point, they did not know scriptures as they should. My point, why did Jesus then say anything at all about angels? It had then nothing to do with what is in scriptures, according to this view, and it would be antithetical to Jesus showing they did not know scriptures. He then should not have said it. It was not in scriptures according to this view of what is excluded. It is just in 1 Enoch, even if it wasn't directly quoted. That's the only place, and the special knowledge of Jesus about it would still be antithetical to his saying that those he spoke to did not know scriptures.
"Wherefore have ye left the high, holy, and eternal heaven, and lain with women, and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men and taken to yourselves wives, and done like the children of earth, and begotten giants (as your) sons? And though ye were holy, spiritual, living the eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten (children) with the blood of flesh, and, as the children of men, have lusted after flesh and blood as those also do who die and perish. Therefore have I given them wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you were formerly spiritual, living the eternal life, and immortal for all generations of the world. And therefore I have not appointed wives for you; for as for the spiritual ones of the heaven, in heaven is their dwelling. And now, the giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth, and on the earth shall be their dwelling. Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin; they shall be evil spirits on earth, and evil spirits shall they be called. As for the spirits of heaven, in heaven shall be their dwelling, but as for the spirits of the earth which were born upon the earth, on the earth shall be their dwelling. And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, destroy, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth, and cause trouble: they take no food, but nevertheless hunger and thirst, and cause offences. And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them."
From Enoch, the message to those who came from heaven to rebel against God and corrupted the people on earth.
If some of Enoch is not to be accepted there are parts that may have been added, but a number of things from 1 Enoch is used in the new testament, and the book preceded the new testament, even though just Jude is mentioning it, this should be taken into account.
Whatever Jipsah is saying won't matter, he already told me previously I could choose to ignore him. He actually made sense that one time.
