Roger Pearse

You certainly asserted this. What you did not do, tho, was show that he did. Did you not realise this? All you asserted was that a few words in the NT paralled some in 1 Enoch. We have to remove the possibility of a false positive before we can assert the connection.

I have the same problem with this as with your other comments. In each case you imagine something might be so, find it convenient, and instantly start asserting it *is* so. Some people in this forum are rather familiar with ancient literature, you know, so it is quite unsafe to be so hasty. Likewise it is unsafe to be so hasty to presume that one idea can only have one source.

<smile> You're just reiterating what you said. Rather than do the same, may I direct you to what I wrote? I wonder whether anyone can rationally discuss inspiration without knowing what it is, you see.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Naphtali Jones

Let's try this one more time. The Book of Enoch was well known to the people of 1st Century Judea. It was considered scriptural by the Jews until it was struck from the Hebrew Scriptures by the Sanhedrin at Yavneh c. 90 AD. It was still regarded as scriptural by Christians until the book was discredited after the Council of Laodicea in 364. Several of the New Testament writers refer to stories within it in a scriptural context and Jude quotes it directly. Jesus must certainly have been aware of the Book of Enoch and it seems that he based a lot of his message on it. The terminology, the eschatology, the ideas about Hell and the messianic rhetoric that Jesus uses in the gospels are very similar to the Book of Enoch. Take all of that and then combine it with the reply of Jesus in Matthew 22:29-30 in which he references Enoch 15:5-7 as scripture. "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures...".

After all that, you respond with the comment that I haven't explained why I thought Jesus had read the Book of Enoch. Do you see now why I asked you if you had actually been reading this thread?

~Nap

Naphtali Jones

To me inspiration means that, at the very least, the information contained within the writing is transmitted directly from God to the writer. The writer then puts that information into his own words. Some would argue that even the actual wording comes directly from God. If the information contained within a writing turns out to be false then that necessarily precludes the writing from being inspired by an omniscient God.

~Nap

Sheshbazzar

Within Protestantism there has been a drifting away from the knowledge of the distinction that stands between "Canon" and "Scripture".
Searching the writings of the early Church Fathers, it is easily provable that the "Deuterocanonicals" were directly quoted, called "Scripture" and recommended by the Fathers.
In the Catholic tradition and teaching these books have from the earliest times been included within the Bible as "Scripture", as they are to this very day, and may yet be so cited by any Catholic.
(The Book of Enoch is a special case, so I'll address it in a separate post)

During the first 400 years, each city/church developed a custom of a public reading of a certain set of Scriptures upon each day of the year, this coming about as a natural circumstance of observing Holy Days commemorating the important events recorded within the Scriptures, of course those Scriptures that particularly pertained to the Holy Day being observed were retained for airing at the appropriate times. Other readings were appointed to honor Martyrs and Saints upon their designated days.
These accepted readings became that Church's "Canon", (and not all Canons were identical) however, because of the limited number of days within the year, not all the books that were accepted as being "Scripture" were able to be fitted within that schedule, but that did not at all reduce their status of being accepted as Scripture.
This why an early Father or Counsil might enumerate the "Canon" leaving out certain books, yet at the same time quote from those omitted books as being "The Scripture".
I won't go in to the details of Martin Luther's contempt for the text of the Scriptures, but will rather here comment on its effect upon latter Protestant views of what the word "Canon" has came to signify.
The modern Protestant and Fundamentalist idea of the meaning of the words 'Closed Canon' is very different that of the Christian church prior to the Reformation, 'Closed Canon' then meaning a limitation upon the set of Books that were approved for public reading upon designated days.
But as the Protestant movement gained steam, the Apocryphia that they had originally shoved to the back of their bibles, was gradually omitted from more and more of their "Versions", until these books were no longer included. By this time the Protestant idea of a 'Closed Canon' had shriveled down into the idea that the word "Canon = Scripture", and that a 'Closed Canon' meant "Closed Scriptures", and that any book that was not presently being included within the text of their "version" of the Bible, was ipso-facto "unscriptural".
I have no reason to doubt that you, "have copies of the OT apocrypha here and have always more or less known about them," but my question would be whether you are aware of their interrelationships with the NT texts, and are you at all appreciative of the respect that was paid them by early church, or are you yet operating on that level of ignorance that is so commonly displayed by Fundamentalist Protestants?
Respectfully, Sheshbazzar

Roger, please take the time to do some in-depth research on The Book of Enoch, its history and its relationship to the NT writings.

Roger Pearse

Nothing in this seems to relate to my post -- sorry.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

One point in advance: you can't merely assert things and have me accept them, because I don't know you and have no idea if you actually know any of the things you assert, or are merely repeating something you read once. (No offence -- a lot of this goes on, on the web).

What I want to see is data, you see.

Perhaps. But a caution: this is not a statement of fact, but an inference from some unstated data. Perhaps it is derived from the presence of some fragments at Qumran?

Whatever the case, please give us the data on which you think this conclusion rests.

Likewise.

Tertullian is certainly evidence that a lot of Christians thought otherwise, ca. 200 AD. The only references to the work that I know of are in Barnabas (twice), Clement of Alexandria (who isn't evidence on matters of canon), Origen, and Augustine.

Does this add up to the statement above? I'm not sure it does.

Jude quotes it. What are the other references you have in mind?

It's possible. But I see no necessity for the conclusion.

We can't just presume things, you see. We have to show that it is so.

Says who?

Not least because both emerge from the same intertestamental period of Judaism. We can't take a parallel and presume connection or derivation; we have to show that it occurred.

You are again presuming that he is doing so here. This is where you started...

No, I asked how you knew that he did. The answer appears to be "He might have done." Well he might, as Jude does and as Paul quoted Menander. But the statements you offer don't really back this up.

The argument that Jesus might have quoted Enoch, which can't be scripture, therefore he could not be divine, isn't tight enough to work. Water seeps in at each turn. Sorry, but it isn't.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

All very theological, but surely rather dependent on you getting the doctrine right? Are you certain you are qualified to have an opinion? Not least since all this is not to be found in scripture.

You could be right. I'm merely pointing out the lack of underpinning here.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Naphtali Jones

If you have a different definition of inspiration I would be happy to hear it.

As a human being I'd say, "yeah, I'm qualified to have an opinion".

As for my theological qualifications:

I was a fundamentalist christian for more than 25 years, I went to bible college, trained for the ministry and did a summer stint in the mission field. I have been a church board member, youth leader, bible study leader, sunday school teacher and superintendent and worked as an on-call preacher to churches who were in between pastors or to cover pastoral vacations. During an intense seven year deconversion process I read and studied ancient greek, roman and near eastern history, mythology and philosophy in order to work out the theological issues I was having with the church.

The evidence is all there for you to see, but like the saying goes "there is none so blind as he who will not see".

~Nap

Naphtali Jones

Anyways, now that I've taken a few minutes to think about it, what do my qualifications have to do with any of this? My argument stands on its own. It is either a sound argument or a faulty one independent of how qualified I am. If you have a problem with what I've said then point out my errors rather than deliver a personal slap at me.

~Nap

Sheshbazzar

Sorry Roger, but you don't get let yourself off the hook quite so easy.
It all relates directly to your post, specifically to your post;
To which I strenuously objected against your phrase "material not in scripture", when that material was most assuredly IN Scripture, and accounted as Scripture for at least 400 years.
In as much as you also indicted that;
As I have quite fully laid out for you -what you should know-
You are now without any excuse, your attempt to evade the facts is not consistent with any honest effort to uncover or uphold any truth.
Now the ball is in your court, prove to us all that the Book of Enoch was not regarded as being Scripture by the early Christians.