sharon45

Everyone reacts differently so I applaud your figuring out another tactic and I am sorry if my post seemed like an interruption.This is a great assumption here, but as you said earlier, this really is for bible believers.

Naphtali Jones

So far the argument has gone like this:

I. If Jesus were really the Divine Son of God he would be able to accurately judge between what was and what was not the Word of God.
II. The book of Enoch is definitely not the Word of God.

Now for the controversial part:

Part III

Jesus believed that the Book of Enoch was Holy Scripture (ie. the Word of God).

It is no secret that the Book of Enoch was well regarded in early church circles. There are several references from the Book of Enoch in the New Testament including Revelations, 2nd Peter and in particular Jude, which quotes the book directly as well as making references to the stories contained therein. The reference in 2nd Peter 2:4 shows that it was considered scriptural as it is listed as an example along with several other well-known scriptural stories. As well, the Book of Enoch is mentioned in the writings of many early church fathers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. When it is mentioned it is always given due regard as holy scripture.

It is known from the Dead Sea Scrolls, by its circulation in 1st Century Judea and by its prominence in the early church that Jesus must certainly have been familiar with the Book of Enoch. A lot of Jesus’ message: his messianic aspirations, his apocalyptic visions and his ideas about hell do not correspond well with Old Testament theology but all are uncannily similar to the contents of the Book of Enoch. As well, his use of terminology such as “the elect� and his constant messianic self-references to the “Son of Man� are exactly mirrored by the book of Enoch.

Now the clincher. In Matthew 22: 29,30 Jesus directly references the book of Enoch and calls it scripture. The Sadducees are asking him a question about marriage after the resurrection and Jesus replies with “You are mistaken, not knowing the scriptures…. For in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven�. Exactly where in scripture is this reference found? Only one place – you guessed it, the Book of Enoch. “Therefore have I given [men] wives also that they might impregnate them, and beget children by them, that thus nothing might be wanting to them on earth. But you [angels] were 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�. Enoch 15:5-7

Jesus directly refers to a portion of the Book of Enoch and calls it scripture. Since the Book of Enoch is definitely not scripture I can safely conclude that Jesus was not able to discern the Word of God. Therefore Jesus cannot have been the Divine Son of God.

~ Nap

Jagella

Hi Naphtali:

You’ve demonstrated that Jesus, assuming he existed, was very imperfect and made mistakes. He had no more knowledge than most people of his day might have. He actually knew less than the Greeks did. Some Christians attempt to explain Jesus’ imperfections by saying he was human as well as divine, but such an explanation is a poor fit at best. It’s entirely possible for any human, divine or otherwise, to recognize that some book contained human errors. Since the Book of Enoch contained errors that a human can recognize, then the “Jesus was human too� argument won’t fly.

I recognized the impossibility of Jesus’ divinity long ago shortly before I lost my Christian faith. No perfect being could be so imperfect! Jesus uttered many false prophecies, and according to the Bible itself in Deuteronomy 18:22:

In Matthew 23:36 Jesus is quoted as saying:

“All these things� never “came upon that generation�! Jesus then failed the “true prophet� test in Deuteronomy 18:22, and we need not be “afraid of him.�

Jagella

Naphtali Jones

Hmmm... I really thought that more believers would have commented on this. Perhaps they are all cowering under the blinding glare of my unrelenting logic. :Cheeky:

~Nap

Alethias

Liberal christians don't necessarily require perfection of their god or their bible. Fundamentalist christians do, but I suspect many wouldn't even make it past the part where you are using the book of Enoch as part of your argument.

I think your argument is an excellent one. It makes it very clear(at least to me) that the authors of the New Testament considered Enoch scripture even though the compilers of the New Testament canon didn't.

From a moderator perspective, this really fits better in the Biblical Criticism & History Forum. There are some genuine experts that hang out there that might miss it if it stays in GRD, so I'm moving it.

SwordOfTruth,
GRD Moderator

TedM

Hi Naphtali. I'm not sure why you conclude that he should be able to judge between what was the word of God and what wasn't. Jesus admits to not being all-knowing in the gospels when he says that only the Father knows when the end will be. Is it possible that the only requirement for Jesus to have been divine was having a complete lack of sin?

ted

TedM

I can see why one might disagree. It doesn't follow that something that is God's word would be included in the canon. Many believers believe that people hear god's word through the holy spirit, but such things are obviously not put into the canon. Even the so-called infallible proclamations of the Pope aren't added to the canon of the Bible. I can see a Christian also saying that the book of Enoch may have included God's word in some places and not in others.

ted

Naphtali Jones

Most fundamentalist christians believe that even they have the gift of being able to properly discern the Word of God. 1 Corinthians 2:14 asserts that "he who is spiritual judges all things". If ordinary believers have this ability then shouldn't someone who supposedly came from heaven with God's message be able to do this as well. He is represented as a teacher, a prophet and a miracle worker. He claims to be the messiah, the only begotten Son of God. He is believed by millions of christians to have actually been God Incarnate but he couldn't tell the difference between the inspired Word of God and a pile of hooey!

This is an interesting point but I think that, for the gospel to be true, Jesus would have had to have been more than just an ordinary human (who happened to have had a virgin birth) and somehow made it through life without sinning.

Just my opinion though!

Naphtali Jones

Some might make this case, but most fundamentalist christians wouldn't hear of the idea. To them God had direct control over what entered into the canon and what was rejected. They love to make the claim that God's Word was not decided by committee.

From my experiences as a Holy-Ghost-filled fall-down roll-on-the-floor speaking-in-tongues Pentecostal I can tell you that such utterances are clearly differentiated from holy scripture.

Don't you know that the Pope is the antichrist. :rolling:

Good point, but I doubt I will ever hear a fundamentalist make this argument. Either a prophet was inspired or he wasn't.

Great response though.

TedM

I don't really know if fundamentalists would accept the idea that a book could contain part of God's word or not. I recall that 1 Clement nearly made it into the canon, and can see why some might think that parts of it were god-inspired, so maybe there was some leeway at the time, and maybe fundamentalists today wouldn't have much problem with it. What I think is true is that fundamentalists believe that what is in the canon is 100% inspired by God.

Anyway, your posts and idea is interesting. I was just trying to think of possible angles one might come up with..

take care,
ted