What do you think about Jude quoting Enoch?

[tango]

Weak argument.

Jude quotes Enoch.

That quote is found in the book of Enoch, NOT in the Old Testament anywhere.

Suggesting that Jude did not accept the book of Enoch is more speculative than suspecting he did accept it.

We can accept something as being relevant without accepting it qualifies as Scripture. You seem to be confused with this word "accept". Some things are false. Some things are true. Some things that are true are divinely inspired. Some things that are true are not divinely inspired.

 

[Origen]

The fact something is quoted near Scripture doesn't mean it's Scripture, and noting this doesn't mean it's automatically pure fiction.

You are 100% correct and the apostle Paul himself PROVES your point. It didn't bother Paul one bit to quote Menander to the Corinthians along with Scripture. (1 Cor. 15:29-34).

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? Why are we in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

Here we have a clear example of Paul quoting a non-Scriptural source (bold red) together with (in fact right next to) Scripture (bold blue).

 

[NathanH83]

Jesus had no ”brothers” ... God was his father and Mary is an eternal Virgin (ask Josiah and the RCC). [troublemaker]

The Bible says Jesus had brothers.

 

[NathanH83]

You had better get word to the councils Hippo and Carthage about Jude because they don't list 1 Enoch as canonical.


If Jude did accept it as canonical, as you seem to be claiming, then it follows that Hippo and Carthage canon list is wrong.

If the councils Hippo and Carthage set the canon, as you have claimed, then Jude is wrong.

Yea, they might have been wrong. Jude seems to think Enoch is part of the Bible. That’s just makes the Protestant canon all that much more wrong.

 

[tango]

Yea, they might have been wrong. Jude seems to think Enoch is part of the Bible. That’s just makes the Protestant canon all that much more wrong.

I hate it when this happens. Some guy on the internet thinks that major councils are wrong so I guess we might as well all burn our Bibles and start over. Because there's no way that context matters, right?

 

[atpollard]

The Bible says Jesus had brothers.

I agree.
I was just having fun and stirring up a little trouble.

 

[NathanH83]

I hate it when this happens. Some guy on the internet thinks that major councils are wrong so I guess we might as well all burn our Bibles and start over. Because there's no way that context matters, right?

Jude isn’t just some guy on the Internet.
I don’t think they had Internet back then

 

[NathanH83]

I agree.
I was just having fun and stirring up a little trouble.

What about brothers though?
Like, for example: brothers.

 

[NathanH83]

You are 100% correct and the apostle Paul himself PROVES your point. It didn't bother Paul one bit to quote Menander to the Corinthians along with Scripture. (1 Cor. 15:29-34).

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? Why are we tin danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! 32What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

Here we have a clear example of Paul quoting a non-Scriptural source (bold red) together with (in fact right next to) Scripture (bold blue) and both epistles were addressed to fellow believers.

Paul made it clear that he was quoting someone else’s literature, not the Bible. Context is key.

 

[atpollard]

What about brothers though?
Like, for example: brothers.

What do you want me to say? I already told you that I agree Jesus had “brothers” (technically half-brothers). However every Christian that believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary would disagree with us (since they would be step-brothers at best and possibly even distant relatives like cousins) ... this includes all of the RCC and many Lutherans (including Josiah on this board).

 

[Andrew]

[Terullian has entered the discussion]

I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order (of action) to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. I suppose they did not think that, having been published before the deluge, it could have safely survived that world-wide calamity, the abolisher of all things. If that is the reason (for rejecting it), let them recall to their memory that Noah, the survivor of the deluge, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself; and he, of course, had heard and remembered, from domestic renown and hereditary tradition, concerning his own great-grandfather's grace in the sight of God, and concerning all his preachings; since Enoch had given no other charge to Methuselah than that he should hand on the knowledge of them to his posterity. Noah therefore, no doubt, might have succeeded in the trusteeship of (his) preaching; or, had the case been otherwise, he would not have been silent alike concerning the disposition (of things) made by God, his Preserver, and concerning the particular glory of his own house.

If (Noah) had not had this (conservative power) by so short a route, there would (still) be this (consideration) to warrant our assertion of (the genuineness of) this Scripture: he could equally have renewed it, under the Spirit's inspiration, after it had been destroyed by the violence of the deluge, as, after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian storming of it, every document of the Jewish literature is generally agreed to have been restored through Ezra.

But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired. By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that (very) reason, just like all the other (portions) nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spoke of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.

 

[Andrew]

[Irenaeus has entered the discussion]

Abraham himself, without circumcision and without observance of Sabbaths, believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. (James 2:23)

Then, again, Lot, without circumcision, was brought out from Sodom, receiving salvation from God.

So also did Noah, pleasing God, although he was uncircumcised, receive the dimensions [of the ark], of the world of the second race [of men].

Enoch too pleasing God, without circumcision, discharged the office of God's legate to the angels although he was a man, and was translated, and is preserved until now as a witness of the just judgment of God, because the angels when they had transgressed fell to the earth for judgment, but the man who pleased [God] was translated for salvation.

Moreover, all the rest of the multitude of those righteous men who lived before Abraham, and of those patriarchs who preceded Moses, were justified independently of the things above mentioned, and without the law of Moses.

As also Moses himself says to the people in Deuteronomy: The Lord your God formed a covenant in Horeb. The Lord formed not this covenant with your fathers, but for you. (Deuteronomy 5:2)

 

[NathanH83]

What do you want me to say? I already told you that I agree Jesus had “brothers” (technically half-brothers). However every Christian that believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary would disagree with us (since they would be step-brothers at best and possibly even distant relatives like cousins) ... this includes all of the RCC and many Lutherans (including Josiah on this board).

Yes, the Catholic church believes in the perpetual virginity of Mary. The New Testament doesn’t say that though. It’s just a belief of Catholics. A heretical belief in my opinion. Brought on by Artemis and Diana worship. Gotta make money off those idols, right? Slap the name “Mary” on them and you’re good to go.

 

[Andrew]

As for Jude, keep in mind that aside from the Torah, no official "canon" existed in Judaism nor Christianity at this time. Jewish OT Scripture differed depending on the Jewish sect, at the advent of Christianity the Jews asserted their universal canon, Christianity has only settled a universal canon for the NT. However the OT canon in Christendom differs depending on denomination.

So the OP asked if Jude considered Enoch Scripture. The answer is an absolute YES.

The argument that because "Paul quotes from greek poets proves that not all quotes are Scripture" is a weak argument that undermines the Christian wit. Obviously Paul in context is not suggesting we hold the greek poetry he quotes as Scripture, to think that this has created a dilemma for any Christian is an insult.

In all fairness "Canon" is the official rule in which all Christianity agrees, but only the NT, from Gnostics to Mormons we can easily identify heretics, but for the OT canon we aren't so universal are we?

If I choose to join the Ethiopian Orthodox, Enoch IS official CANON.

So again the answer to the question of Jude is YES, JUDE calls it PROPHETIC and then QUOTES the book of Enoch. It was Scripture for Jude.

If Jude did not consider it a divine prophecy in Scripture then the quote was a prophecy given of a heathen and we should open our Bibles to Jude and rip it straight out, divination is prohibited and does not belong in the universal Christian canon of the New Testament

 

[NathanH83]

As for Jude, keep in mind that aside from the Torah, no official "canon" existed in Judaism nor Christianity at this time. Jewish OT Scripture differed depending on the Jewish sect, at the advent of Christianity the Jews asserted their universal canon, Christianity has only settled a universal canon for the NT. However the OT canon in Christendom differs depending on denomination.

So the OP asked if Jude considered Enoch Scripture. The answer is an absolute YES.

The argument that because "Paul quotes from greek poets proves that not all quotes are Scripture" is a weak argument that undermines the Christian wit. Obviously Paul in context is not suggesting we hold the greek poetry he quotes as Scripture, to think that this has created a dilemma for any Christian is an insult.

In all fairness "Canon" is the official rule in which all Christianity agrees, but only the NT, from Gnostics to Mormons we can easily identify heretics, but for the OT canon we aren't so universal are we?

If I choose to join the Ethiopian Orthodox, Enoch IS official CANON.

So again the answer to the question of Jude is YES, JUDE calls it PROPHETIC and then QUOTES the book of Enoch. It was Scripture for Jude.

If Jude did not consider it a divine prophecy in Scripture then the quote was a prophecy given of a heathen and we should open our Bibles to Jude and rip it straight out, divination is prohibited and does not belong in the universal Christian canon of the New Testament

That’s absolutely right. Their argument is weak. When Paul quotes Greek poets and Greek prophets, he specifically says, “one of your own poets has said…” or, “one of their own prophets has said…”

He’s making it crystal clear that this is what SOMEONE ELSE’S literature says, NOT his own people’s scriptures.

But when Jude quotes Enoch, he quotes it in a way that makes it sound like he’s convinced that he’s quoting scripture. He even said that Enoch prophesied. He literally accepts Enoch as a prophet.

Isn’t it so funny that they LOVE to say that Maccabees can’t be scripture because there were no prophets at that time (as if to say it has to be genuine prophecy to be scripture), and yet when Jude quotes Enoch’s genuine prophecy, they just dismiss it? Such backwards and inconsistent logic!

Oh, and by the way, when Moses wrote Genesis and briefly mentioned Enoch and the events of his life….how did Moses know any of that???

Clearly, there had to be some written document recording something about Enoch, which had to have survived the flood (Noah must have had it on the ark), which was eventually passed down to Moses.

 

[NathanH83]

Is anyone going to explain what a TOME or an ERGO is?

 

[Andrew]

Is anyone going to explain what a TOME or an ERGO is?

Post #37 and 38

 

[Andrew]

Oh, and by the way, when Moses wrote Genesis and briefly mentioned Enoch and the events of his life….how did Moses know any of that???

Clearly, there had to be some written document recording something about Enoch, which had to have survived the flood (Noah must have had it on the ark), which was eventually passed down to Moses.

I believe that the further we go back in biblical history the more keen our ability to store and recite information received orally was. Lossless is certainly found in the NT when certain details differ between the four Gospels.

The disciples were never instructed to write anything down and distribute their testimony, they were told to go out and preach the Gospel, their testimony was written by their disciples and by which in my opinion is the reason their testimony of the Gospel are referred to as an "accordance" hence "The Gospel according to ..."

Still there were just a few minor differences, "Cold Case Christianity" does an excellent job at using these differences to confirm the gospel books were not "rehearsed" but are the genuine multiple perspectives of the witnesses, ie when a crime is committed the witnesses are separated and the eye witness accounts are then documented by an officer, the archives are then examined by a detective.

Now let's consider what Moses had access to concerning historical documents and documentation passed down to him by a hebrew ancestor.
Joseph could read and write in both Hebrew and Egyptian and was also in charge of book keeping, having both access to and authorization of written records.

Whether by oral tradition or previous writings or both he would have translated them to Egyptian and archived them. Moses would have access to the archive in which he would have received much knowledge of his Hebrew ancestry, possibly as far back to time of Adam. As long as accounts from the times of Adam down to the days of Noah were well preserved and retained by any means, from there on it's reasonable to accept that Moses would have had them handy and made use of them.

Also, since the Sumerian cuneiform tablets record a similar parallel (very strange and very different) account of creation up to a great flood and attributes the creation to strange gods, it's illogical to reason that these ancient babylonian post flood records that predate Moses were just a coincidence... atheist use this evidence to charge the books of Moses of "perjury". The LOGICAL explanation would be that the TRUE account of Genesis survived up to Moses, perhaps through Eber?

To clarify I am not suggesting that Moses was not under the inspiration of God when he authored Genesis nor am I suggesting that he merely translated egyptian records.

Sorry, didn't mean to jump off subject

 

[eddif]

Except that's not what I'm saying at all.

The fact something is quoted near Scripture doesn't mean it's Scripture, and noting this doesn't mean it's automatically pure fiction. You know, there are thousands of textbooks out there that quote pure truth and not a single one of them is divinely inspired. I can look up from my desk and see a whole bunch of technical reference manuals that give me information on anything from how to dismantle and rebuild my car's engine to how to frame a room to code requirements when doing electrical work and so on. Every single one of them is filled with truth. Not a single one is fiction, and not a single one contains words breathed by God. And then I've got a bunch of fictional books - novels, short stories, fables and the like. None of them are breathed by God and none of them contain a whole lot of truth.

Is it really so difficult to accept that I can quote from Scripture, from technical reference books and from fictional novels without regarding them as in any way equal?

In a theological context I might quote Scripture to make a point and then use an analogy to illustrate the point. An example there is that in one of my sermons I talked about God's forgiveness lifting our sins as if they were washed away and had never happened, and used an illustration of walking along the beach as the tide came in. The tide washes away footprints as if they were never there, much like God forgives sin as if it never happened. My analogy wasn't divinely inspired, it was my own thought. The Scripture I referenced was divinely inspired. The two sit together.

One time I was talking to a friend and used a couple of examples from the major arcana of the Rider-Waite tarot deck to make a theological point, drawing parallels from Scripture. Does this mean I think the tarot is the same as Scripture?

I really do not want to get into this discussion.

You have made some good points. This is to support your statements, and not to be critical.

This is a first for me. This movie (quoting from a movie - wow).

My Cousin Vinny - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

We can sometimes look at our previous thoughts and see how wrong we were. All of a sudden all our previous statements do not hold water.

Excellent post.

Mississippi redneck
eddif

 

[Origen]

Paul made it clear that he was quoting someone else’s literature, not the Bible. Context is key.

False! Paul does not. He simply says "'Do not be deceived: "'Bad company ruins good morals.'" That's it.

Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? Why are we in danger every hour? I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.