Did Jesus not validate Book of Enoch?

[JohnDB]

Ever hear of this unique thing called a "study Bible?".

Okay

In Jewish society the Torah was at the top of the food chain. The apocrypha was at the bottom of the food chain...and pseudopigrapha (Book of Enoch) was not food at all...just a fantasy tale. In it's preface it explains about 12 different ways that it is not to be considered scriptures... but today's simplistic society that doesn't seem to have the skillset to determine left from right (tons of YouTube videos to prove this) cannot understand that this book is a work of fiction for enjoyment reading that is religiously based. The book isn't even considered Talmud. (Also known to be fantasy stories)

Yes, Jesus did quote the book of Enoch... because it was a popular book that everyone knew. But never once did Jesus say that the book was scripture.

And as for the passage quoted in the OP...
Jesus was being sarcastic to the Pharisees about how they didn't even know God's name much less any of the higher theological positions.

 

[Jim Parker]

Yes, Jesus did quote the book of Enoch... because it was a popular book that everyone knew. But never once did Jesus say that the book was scripture.

That's not a valid argument.
What Jesus did not say doesn't tell us anything.
It is an argument from silence.
I's like, "Mommy didn't say I COULDN'T have another cookie."

 

[JLB]

Ever hear of this unique thing called a "study Bible?".

Okay

In Jewish society the Torah was at the top of the food chain. The apocrypha was at the bottom of the food chain...and pseudopigrapha (Book of Enoch) was not food at all...just a fantasy tale. In it's preface it explains about 12 different ways that it is not to be considered scriptures... but today's simplistic society that doesn't seem to have the skillset to determine left from right (tons of YouTube videos to prove this) cannot understand that this book is a work of fiction for enjoyment reading that is religiously based. The book isn't even considered Talmud. (Also known to be fantasy stories)

Yes, Jesus did quote the book of Enoch... because it was a popular book that everyone knew. But never once did Jesus say that the book was scripture.

And as for the passage quoted in the OP...
Jesus was being sarcastic to the Pharisees about how they didn't even know God's name much less any of the higher theological positions.

More opinion when scriptures have been provided.


We don’t need more opinion.


Please explain why the Holy Spirit would allow Jude to refer us to Enoch if it was just fantasy?


Let’s please keep the discussion biblical.


Please.



JLB

 

[JohnDB]

That's not a valid argument.
What Jesus did not say doesn't tell us anything.
It is an argument from silence.
I's like, "Mommy didn't say I COULDN'T have another cookie."

Ok...
Ya got a point there...I agree

But that doesn't erase my other points.

More opinion when scriptures have been provided.


We don’t need more opinion.


Please explain why the Holy Spirit would allow Jude to refer us to Enoch if it was just fantasy?


Let’s please keep the discussion biblical.


Please.



JLB

Sola Scripture is a false set of rules for a discussion.

Oral tradition and anthropology studies show clearly that Jude is a summation of Talmud and other religiously based stories that prove a set of lessons.

 

[Jim Parker]

Sola Scripture is a false set of rules for a discussion.

Oral tradition and anthropology studies show clearly that Jude is a summation of Talmud and other religiously based stories that prove a set of lessons.

Most of the apostolic teaching was oral. There were 12 of them who went "all over the world" and of those 12 we have "Apostolic" written documents from only Matthew, John, Peter and Paul. Luke, Mark, James and Jude were not apostles.
And much of the NT hadn't been written before the Gospel was spread all over the Roman Empire and beyond.
Rom 10:17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Note that Paul did not say "Faith comes by READING the word of God." The primary method of spreading the Gospel was preaching.

 

[Razeontherock]

In it's preface it explains about 12 different ways it is not to be considered Scripture
.

What preface do you refer to? A particular study Bible? Enoch itself? (And then you need to get into which Enoch)

 

[JLB]

Ok...
Ya got a point there...I agree

But that doesn't erase my other points.


Sola Scripture is a false set of rules for a discussion.

Oral tradition and anthropology studies show clearly that Jude is a summation of Talmud and other religiously based stories that prove a set of lessons.

We have so much division in the body because of unverifiable tradition.


Let’s have our foundation of understanding be found in the teachings of Christ which His Apostles and writers of the New Testament have given us.


With that said I don’t need to refer to the writings of Enoch to prove what Jude referred to, because the rest of scripture validated it.


So I will leave it at that and hope we can just find our unity in the Spirit of truth and peace.

I would rather just stick to the scriptures we do have as there is much to be understood from them without going to the apocrypha.


On this I hope we can find common ground.


Be blessed.



JLB

 

[Razeontherock]

But the Church did not. They remained until the Bible Society decided to remove them in the 1800s.

English Puritans removed Apocrypha from their Bible in 1642

KJV stopped including it in 1666

 

[jasonc]

English Puritans removed Apocrypha from their Bible in 1642

KJV stopped including it in 1666

The akjv,which only had 16 copies had those books,newer revision of 1768 is what we have.

 

[JohnDB]

What preface do you refer to? A particular study Bible? Enoch itself? (And then you need to get into which Enoch)

The book itself has an included preface written into the story line that explains how it is not scripture and is deliberately not scripture because it deliberately fails the tests of scripture (one of which being single author but the book claims multiple authors but the truth was single authorship from the internal evidence)

 

[Jim Parker]

English Puritans removed Apocrypha from their Bible in 1642

KJV stopped including it in 1666

Why???

 

[Razeontherock]

Why???

I'm not sure. I have also read that it was first not omitted to cut printing costs, but I don't know if there's any truth to that.

I think it made no sense to remove it because it's "not Scripture;" it was never claimed to be Scripture, right? Just worthwhile reading, far better than secular stuff, and likely to help us understand Scripture better?

 

[jasonc]

its not like the puritans(Anglican break off btw) were catholic friendly. the events of that were close to the war against the catholics by Cromwell in Ireland and that sad history. he was protestant and he killed a lot of catholics in his realm as he saw them being heretics. the irish problem of the orange and the green started with him.

 

[Razeontherock]

That is closely related to when the Apocrypha was removed. The why still eludes me. Maybe it was lost in the "fog of war?" Maybe it was part of an effort to be as un-Catholic as possible? I'm purely guessing ...

 

[Jim Parker]

I think it made no sense to remove it because it's "not Scripture;"

Right. But it's "Not scripture" according to whose definition?
It was included by the 70 scholars who compiled the Septuagint around 200BC. So, apparently, they thought it was scripture.
The Sadducees would have said that only the Torah (Septuagint) was scripture.
And the Sadducees said that there was no rising from the dead. (It's not in the Pentateuch.)
And Protestants say that only the 66 books are inspired so there's no praying for the dead. (2 Maccabees)

Well, the apocrypha give us something to fight about if nothing else.

iakov the fool

 

[jasonc]

Right. But it's "Not scripture" according to whose definition?
It was included by the 70 scholars who compiled the Septuagint around 200BC. So, apparently, they thought it was scripture.
The Sadducees would have said that only the Torah (Septuagint) was scripture.
And the Sadducees said that there was no rising from the dead. (It's not in the Pentateuch.)
And Protestants say that only the 66 books are inspired so there's no praying for the dead. (2 Maccabees)

Well, the apocrypha give us something to fight about if nothing else.

iakov the fool

yet despite that, well the jews today hate the lxx, and use the Masoretic as a source don't use it at all. given how out there that the Talmud, Zohar can be, that says a lot. we use the Masoretic text more then the lxx, I don't even think the rcc uses the lxx for the ot at all, just the Masoretic text now.

 

[Northman]

The why still eludes me. Maybe it was lost in the "fog of war?" Maybe it was part of an effort to be as un-Catholic as possible? I'm purely guessing ...

That's a pretty good wild swing with that hammer to hit the nail so precisely.

As believers I think we all want to think of and see these bodies of councils or judges or whatever to be in the best and most righteous light possible. That is to our fault. When it comes to England, there was very much an agenda. So clear it was that if you were there at the time(and for a long time after) to even say "Are we really trying to be as un-catholic as possible?", it would have landed you in prison or worse.

 

[Jim Parker]

yet despite that, well the jews today hate the lxx, and use the Masoretic as a source don't use it at all. given how out there that the Talmud, Zohar can be, that says a lot. we use the Masoretic text more then the lxx, I don't even think the rcc uses the lxx for the ot at all, just the Masoretic text now.

The LXX has it's issues but it was the "scripture" that the NT folks quoted. (except Paul. He corrected it when it differed from the Hebrew according to F. F. Bruce.)

 

[jasonc]

The LXX has it's issues but it was the "scripture" that the NT folks quoted. (except Paul. He corrected it when it differed from the Hebrew according to F. F. Bruce.)

Not suggesting otherwise, just noting the current state.

 

[JohnDB]

The LXX has it's issues but it was the "scripture" that the NT folks quoted. (except Paul. He corrected it when it differed from the Hebrew according to F. F. Bruce.)

I would tend to disagree with him on how he said that.

It's close to the truth but still missing it.

Hebrew is an idiomatic and metaphoric language...often with more than one meaning at a time. Greek tended to be less idiomatic and metaphoric but it still had them.

But there were many times that the Old Testament intended the multiple definitions at the same time and often Paul used the less "popular" or known definitions to explain the scriptures. Of course he used the obvious interpretation as well but it was more about the issues of donor language and receptor language than obvious errors with the Septuagint itself.

(Just as a side note):
English is the almost absolute worst receptor language of any to date. Most of the nuanced intention of the Hebrew scriptures is missing. People today are horribly confused when trying to create doctrines. Even the 10tn Commandment people can't explain what it means. Then the whole difference between jealousy vx Envy.
And it requires an "egghead" to explain the difference.