Did Jesus not validate Book of Enoch?

[Razeontherock]

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

I see a movement to include as much Apocrypha as possible. Not because it's held at the same level as Scripture but because it has value, and we don't need to prove to one another how un-Catholic we are anymore.

 

[Razeontherock]

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.

I must be a wierdo then. I can't read the ecumenical coucils without getting physically ill. I don't place confidence in large groups of established religionists gathering centuries after Jesus and His original Disciples trying to rework things. Especially when they start grovelling.

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.

I'm completely unfamiliar with this history. Help me out here: you're saying it went without say that of course the objective was to be as un-Catholic as possible?

 

[Razeontherock]

(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.

Excellent! And this is why we can't turn to an English dictionary to help understand Scripture. We need to look for the original intent of the Author...

 

[JohnDB]

Excellent! And this is why we can't turn to an English dictionary to help understand Scripture. We need to look for the original intent of the Author...

This is why we call the BLEND of art and science as Hermeneutics. You can't use all science and no art nor vice versa. (But most people could use more science in their approach)

Literalists are at an extreme disadvantage when deciphering scriptures...(which is the most used method)

I'm definitely not advocating going beyond what scripture says or trying to make scriptures say what they do not say. Poetic license only goes so far.
But it's kinda obvious at times what the action says is happening.

Let's put it this way...
If the Apostle Paul was a member of this site and used a portion of the sarcasm he regularly used in his letters he probably would have been banned. Jesus might have been banned as well if we had any Pharisees here.

 

[JLB]

Never the less, after all the discussion about how we just can’t really understand or explain the scriptures that was recorded and written by illiterate farmers and fishermen, we have these words:


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.
2 John 9



JLB

 

[Jim Parker]

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.

The reason for creating the LXX was, after the exiles of Israel and Judah, the Jews who returned were no longer using the Hebrew of the Scriptures but almost everyone spoke Greek. So, to make the scriptures available to the average person, the Greek translation was made.

 

[Jim Parker]

I see a movement to include as much Apocrypha as possible. Not because it's held at the same level as Scripture but because it has value, and we don't need to prove to one another how un-Catholic we are anymore.

There is a lot of good stuff there.

 

[Northman]

I must be a wierdo then. I can't read the ecumenical coucils without getting physically ill. I don't place confidence in large groups of established religionists gathering centuries after Jesus and His original Disciples trying to rework things. Especially when they start grovelling.

Not a wierdo. People do trust what they have done though. You have witnessed that in other threads.

I'm completely unfamiliar with this history. Help me out here: you're saying it went without say that of course the objective was to be as un-Catholic as possible?

Not just un-, but anti-. Domination and control never came off the table though, the religious part simply switched hands. Even today, the reigning British monarch is still the head of the Church of England.

 

[jasonc]

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.

For am I God whose Name is jealous. .

 

[jasonc]

The reason for creating the LXX was, after the exiles of Israel and Judah, the Jews who returned were no longer using the Hebrew of the Scriptures but almost everyone spoke Greek. So, to make the scriptures available to the average person, the Greek translation was made.

They were asked by ptolemy who spoke greek and wanted a translation.

Of course I wonder ,modern greek is far from Koine Greek. It would be like asking an italian about Latin without an education in it.

So the Greek translation to modern Greek is gonna have its issues.

 

[Northman]

Let's put it this way...
If the Apostle Paul was a member of this site and used a portion of the sarcasm he regularly used in his letters he probably would have been banned. Jesus might have been banned as well if we had any Pharisees here.

Well if there was any hint that something was wrong....

 

[Jim Parker]

I don't place confidence in large groups of established religionists gathering centuries after Jesus and His original Disciples trying to rework things.

Interesting.
But you are a trinitarian, right? And believe that Jesus was 100% God and 100% man Right? an that the Holy Spirit is a person, not a power. right?
That's all from those "established religionists."

But people are happy to place their full confidence in John Calvin who "reformed" Christianity 1500 years later and in John Nelson Darby's "Rapture" 1800 years later.

What those "religionists" did was very jealously guard the teaching of the apostles against the multitude of heresies as well as religious and cultural pressures that were exerted against the Church. They managed to keep the faith essentially unchanged (in the east at least) while the western believers were busy waging wars against one another and inventing tens of thousands of denominations.

I find it dismaying that you would categorize them as "established religionists" implying that your faith is purer than theirs. How much do you know about them?

Your comment is quite discouraging.

 

[Jim Parker]

They were asked by ptolemy who spoke greek and wanted a translation.

Never heard that before.
But there it is, right there in Wikipedia!

As well as: "Pre-Christian Jews Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text. Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time. "

So I learned something today.

 

[jasonc]

Never heard that before.
But there it is, right there in Wikipedia!

As well as: "Pre-Christian Jews Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text. Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time. "

So I learned something today.

Jewish source the chabad.org.

 

[JohnDB]

Never heard that before.
But there it is, right there in Wikipedia!

As well as: "Pre-Christian Jews Philo and Josephus considered the Septuagint on equal standing with the Hebrew text. Manuscripts of the Septuagint have been found among the Qumran Scrolls in the Dead Sea, and were thought to have been in use among Jews at the time. "

So I learned something today.

Josephus is interesting in that in "History of the Jews" book he refuses to quote scriptures (as that was the job of the Levites) but he does explain them to the Roman audience.
Many Jews to this day consider him somewhat of a traitor...and I'm not exactly sure why.

But I find a lot of good information from his writing...and I do have both copies of his translated works...both have false inserts but they do stand out... somewhat.

 

[jasonc]

Josephus is interesting in that in "History of the Jews" book he refuses to quote scriptures (as that was the job of the Levites) but he does explain them to the Roman audience.
Many Jews to this day consider him somewhat of a traitor...and I'm not exactly sure why.

But I find a lot of good information from his writing...and I do have both copies of his translated works...both have false inserts but they do stand out... somewhat.

He made friends with his captors after leading a revolt and was loved so much that his last name was flavius,the name of the son of caeser.thr family name.so yes I can see why.

 

[stovebolts]

In Mark 12:24-25 Jesus is talking to the Saducees and they asked him about marriage in heaven. Jesus said "you err because you don't know the Scriptures" and then explains that they don't marry but are like the angels in heaven. There is no Scripture that I know of anywhere In the 66 books that explains that, yet Jesus rebuked them and said they didn't know the Scripture. I Enoch 15:6-7 says "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." If Jesus said it is Scripture why the pushback?

Not even the Jews hold Enoch as scripture and it is firmly rejected because it contradicts scripture. Here is an easy to read link on the matter.


https://www.chabad.org/library/arti...t-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm

Jesus spoke many things that would be in line with oral tradition, aka commentary on the bible which could have made it's way into Enoch among othercwritings. So I would not attribute your quote of Enoch as being the source of Jesus reply. In short, because Enoch has truth in it, does not make it truth in its entirety. It is for this reason it is rejected by both Jewish and Christians.

 

[JLB]

In short, because Enoch has truth in it, does not make it truth in its entirety.

Those who love the truth can certainly respect this view, even if they may not agree with it.




I would certainly encourage all to be thoroughly grounded and established in the doctrine of Christ before venturing into books of the apocrypha.


JLB

 

[stovebolts]

Those who love the truth can certainly respect this view, even if they may not agree with it.




I would certainly encourage all to be thoroughly grounded and established in the doctrine of Christ before venturing into books of the apocrypha.


JLB

Yup,
Most dont understand the idea of canon, or in th he Greek I believe it is kanon.

Paul uses this word, and in essence it simply means a ruler... aka that which one measures with.

We measure all things through our canon aka bible. It takes front seat above all other ideas and writings.

Viewing Enoch through the lense of canon, we can affirm the truths found within Enoch, but we can also reject the false teachings found within Enoch as well.

Often, an entire writing or idea will be rejected because it contains false ideas that are contrary to canon. However, we loose the ability to acknowledge the truth which has the ability to unite us, and grow another in the truth when we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

However, one not grounded in the doctrines of Christ can be easily tossed outside of canon. As such, I think it's best that those not grounded in solid doctrines should not confuse themselves with outside writings that require biblical discernment to sort and sift truth from the lie.

 

[Jim Parker]

Paul uses this word,

Where does Paul use the word "canon"? I was not aware of that. ( Learn something new every day!)

However, one not grounded in the doctrines of Christ can be easily tossed outside of canon.

I seems to me that even being grounded is not infallible protection considering the widespread acceptance of the teachings of Calvin and Darby.