What do you think about Jude quoting Enoch?

[Origen]

Yea, they might have been wrong.

No, they were flat out wrong if Jude believed 1 Enoch was canonical.

Jude seems to think Enoch is part of the Bible.

Jude never makes that claim. Clearly the councils of Hippo and Carthage did not believe it was canonical since they did not include it in their canon list, and they certainly knew of Jude.

That’s just makes the Protestant canon all that much more wrong.

That really does nothing to help the councils of Hippo and Carthage. They would still be wrong.

 

[Josiah]

So what does Jude actually write:

Jude 1:14-15 [NKJV]
14 Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, 15 "to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."


“Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied ...”

• Jude is not speaking of the book, but of the person.
• Enoch, the seventh from Adam, is a specific individual. The book of Enoch is not the “seventh from Adam”.
• Assuming that Jude is inspired (which I am prepared to accept as a given), then Jude does affirm two things:
  • Enoch (the person) was a prophet (he made a prophecy)
  • Jude is about to affirm that the prophecy which he is about to quote (made by Enoch) is a true prophecy.

"Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

• THIS is the prophecy of Enoch according to Jude.
• This prophecy is true (according to Jude).
• If this prophecy appears in the Book of Enoch, then the Book of Enoch contains at least one correct prophecy from Enoch.
• If the prophecy in the Book of Enoch disagrees with this prophecy in any details, then the Book of Enoch contains the error. (We have accepted the inspiration of Jude as a ’given’).

Since Jude was as Jewish as Jesus, Peter, or Paul, he would have been familiar with the use of the phrase “it is written” and “as Scripture” to denote the quoting of Holy Scripture.

• Jude could have read the Book of Enoch and been familiar with the prophecy from there.
• Jude chose to acknowledge the prophecy and the person of Enoch while choosing to avoid acknowledging it as a quote from Scripture.
• We cannot conclude that Jude accepted the Book of Enoch as Scripture since he deliberately chose not to acknowledge it as scripture.
• We can only conclude that the prophecy itself is both from the man called Enoch and is Scripture (through the Book of Jude).

EXACTLY.

Well said. Appreciated.



.

 

[Origen]

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

There's this new invention call a dictionary. Some people call it a lexicon. Try that.

 

[Josiah]

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 j(including Josiah on this board).

Whether Mary bore other children is IRRELEVANT to this thread.

Nathan stated that the "JUDE" who authored the NT book known by that name IS the brother of Jesus. Why that would matter, only Nathan knows (it does no good to ask him things) but his irrelevant point is baseless.... there is ZERO evidence that this Jude is the one mentioned elsewhere, indeed, Tradition clearly rejects that. We have NO CLUE who this "Jude" is, although Tradition says he was neither a brother of Jesus or an apostle.

And BTW (as everyone here knows), I've NEVER said that Mary did not bore more children, just as I've NEVER said she did. I've simply pointed out that the Bible doesn't say EITHER WAY.... and that very strong, very ancient, very ecumenical Tradition says she did not. There are threads for the discussion of Mary's children. No need to derail this one.

But whether she did or did not has NOTHING to do with the Book of Jude stating that some other book was Scripture. Nothing. It's just another, yet another, still one more case of our friend attempting to dodge and evade, what in debate is known as "the shell game"




.

 

[atpollard]

Whether Mary bore other children is IRRELEVANT to this thread.

Nathan stated that the "JUDE" who authored the NT book known by that name IS the brother of Jesus. Why that would matter, only Nathan knows (it does no good to ask him things) but his irrelevant point is baseless.... there is ZERO evidence that this Jude is the one mentioned elsewhere, indeed, Tradition clearly rejects that. We have NO CLUE who this "Jude" is, although Tradition says he was neither a brother of Jesus or an apostle.

And BTW (as everyone here knows), I've NEVER said that Mary did not bore more children, just as I've NEVER said she did. I've simply pointed out that the Bible doesn't say EITHER WAY.... and that very strong, very ancient, very ecumenical Tradition says she did not. There are threads for the discussion of Mary's children. No need to derail this one.

But whether she did or did not has NOTHING to do with the Book of Jude stating that some other book was Scripture. Nothing. It's just another, yet another, still one more case of our friend attempting to dodge and evade, what in debate is known as "the shell game"




.

It was ALMOST related since the point was made that Jude was the brother of Jesus.
(I just made a Virgin Mary joke in response).

I agree it is off-topic for the canonization of 1 Enoch.

 

[NathanH83]

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.

for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
Acts 17:28 - Bible Gateway passage: Acts 17:28 - New King James Version

One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Titus 1:12 - Bible Gateway passage: Titus 1:12 - New King James Version

 

[NathanH83]

EXACTLY.

Well said. Appreciated.



.

Jude quotes from the book.
So I’m going to read his book.
But I’m not reading your book.

 

[NathanH83]

There's this new invention call a dictionary. Some people call it a lexicon. Try that.

You just open up dictionaries and find words that aren’t normally used just to confuse people?

 

[NathanH83]

Whether Mary bore other children is IRRELEVANT to this thread.

Nathan stated that the "JUDE" who authored the NT book known by that name IS the brother of Jesus. Why that would matter, only Nathan knows (it does no good to ask him things) but his irrelevant point is baseless.... there is ZERO evidence that this Jude is the one mentioned elsewhere, indeed, Tradition clearly rejects that. We have NO CLUE who this "Jude" is, although Tradition says he was neither a brother of Jesus or an apostle.

And BTW (as everyone here knows), I've NEVER said that Mary did not bore more children, just as I've NEVER said she did. I've simply pointed out that the Bible doesn't say EITHER WAY.... and that very strong, very ancient, very ecumenical Tradition says she did not. There are threads for the discussion of Mary's children. No need to derail this one.

But whether she did or did not has NOTHING to do with the Book of Jude stating that some other book was Scripture. Nothing. It's just another, yet another, still one more case of our friend attempting to dodge and evade, what in debate is known as "the shell game"




.

But didn’t Mary give birth?

 

[Origen]

for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
Acts 17:28 - Bible Gateway passage: Acts 17:28 - New King James Version

One of them, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
Titus 1:12 - Bible Gateway passage: Titus 1:12 - New King James Version

I did not quote those passages. That is just another one of your pitiful attempts to divert attention.

I quoted 1 Cor. 15:29-34. Here Paul simply says "'Do not be deceived: "'Bad company ruins good morals.'" That's it. He does NOT, as you falsely claimed, "made it clear that he was quoting someone else’s literature, not the Bible." That statement is completely false.

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! 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).

 

[Origen]

You just open up dictionaries and find words that aren’t normally used just to confuse people?

Since it is too much of a problem for you try this one.

Wordsmyth Word Explorer Children's Dictionary; WILD dictionary K-2 | Wordsmyth

Best online English dictionaries for children, with kid-friendly definitions, integrated thesaurus for kids, images, and animations. Spanish and Chinese language support available

kids.wordsmyth.net

 

[pinacled]

I thought the prophecy of chanoch(enoch) mentioned by yair(jude) involved the noble thought of "translated" or "never tasting death" reciprocated by eliyahu.
Mathew 16:28
Revelation 19:10

Blessed be The Holy One

 

[NathanH83]

I did not quote those passages. That is just another one of your pitiful attempts to divert attention.

I quoted 1 Cor. 15:29-34. Here Paul simply says "'Do not be deceived: "'Bad company ruins good morals.'" That's it. He does NOT, as you falsely claimed, "made it clear that he was quoting someone else’s literature, not the Bible." That statement is completely false.

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! 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).

In Acts 17 and Titus 1, Paul makes it crystal clear that he’s quoting someone else’s literature. But the context of Jude is that he’s quoting his own scriptures.

As for the verse in Corinthians, I could easily pull a Josiah on you and say “Paul doesn’t mention Menander by name, and therefore he isn’t quoting Menander.” That’s Josiah’s logic.

Whatever the case, you cannot show one single scripture verse where Paul or any disciple quotes a secular Greek poet or prophet, the way that Jude quotes Enoch, and insinuates that it’s part of scripture.

Jude quotes Enoch, says that Enoch is prophesying, and insinuates that he accepts his prophesy.

Paul never mentions a Greek prophet by name, quotes him, insinuates that it’s part of his own scriptures, accepts the prophecy, and expects his audience to read it as well.

Sorry, but the passage you quoted in Corinthians does not really effect the point I’m making about Jude quoting Enoch.

Moses even mentions Enoch, says that he walked with God, and God took him away.

How did Moses know that? There had to be some kind of written history handed down to Moses where he derived this from. Enoch is not a secular Greek poet. He walked with God and God took him away.

Sorry, but the point you’re making is nonsense.

 

[NathanH83]

I thought the prophecy of enoch mentioned by yair(jude) involved the noble thought of "translated" or "never tasting death" reciprocated by eliyahu.
Mathew 16:28
Revelation 19:10

Blessed be The Holy One

That’s right. Enoch walked with God and then God translated him. No comparison at all to a Greek poet or secular Greek prophet. No comparison whatsoever.

 

[Origen]

In Acts 17 and Titus 1, Paul makes it crystal clear that he’s quoting someone else’s literature. But the context of Jude is that he’s quoting his own scriptures.

Again I did not quote those passages. That is just another one of your pitiful attempts to divert attention.

Again I quoted 1 Cor. 15:29-34. Here Paul simply says "'Do not be deceived: "'Bad company ruins good morals.'" That's it. He does NOT, as you falsely claimed, "made it clear that he was quoting someone else’s literature, not the Bible." Thus your statement is completely false.

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! 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).

Sorry, but the point you’re making is nonsense.

You said "Paul made it clear that he was quoting someone else’s literature, not the Bible." Nowhere in the above passage does Paul make "it clear he was quoting someone else’s literature." Thus your claim is blatantly false. I have done exactly what I set out to do, just as I did when I proved Jude did not quote Enoch "word-for-word verbatim" as you erroneously declared.

 

[pinacled]

In Acts 17 and Titus 1, Paul makes it crystal clear that he’s quoting someone else’s literature. But the context of Jude is that he’s quoting his own scriptures.

As for the verse in Corinthians, I could easily pull a Josiah on you and say “Paul doesn’t mention Menander by name, and therefore he isn’t quoting Menander.” That’s Josiah’s logic.

Whatever the case, you cannot show one single scripture verse where Paul or any disciple quotes a secular Greek poet or prophet, the way that Jude quotes Enoch, and insinuates that it’s part of scripture.

Jude quotes Enoch, says that Enoch is prophesying, and insinuates that he accepts his prophesy.

Paul never mentions a Greek prophet by name, quotes him, insinuates that it’s part of his own scriptures, accepts the prophecy, and expects his audience to read it as well.

Sorry, but the passage you quoted in Corinthians does not really effect the point I’m making about Jude quoting Enoch.

Moses even mentions Enoch, says that he walked with God, and God took him away.

How did Moses know that? There had to be some kind of written history handed down to Moses where he derived this from. Enoch is not a secular Greek poet. He walked with God and God took him away.

Sorry, but the point you’re making is nonsense.

Both moshe and yair mentioning chanoch is from oral torah.

 

[pinacled]

That’s right. Enoch walked with God and then God translated him. No comparison at all to a Greek poet or secular Greek prophet. No comparison whatsoever.

And?

 

[pinacled]

Again I did not quote those passages. That is just another one of your pitiful attempts to divert attention.

Again I quoted 1 Cor. 15:29-34. Here Paul simply says "'Do not be deceived: "'Bad company ruins good morals.'" That's it. He does NOT, as you falsely claimed, "made it clear that he was quoting someone else’s literature, not the Bible." Thus your statement is completely false.

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! 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).

The Torah and Prophets is being drashed by ole sh'aul in the bolded red.

17 Bible verses about Intermarriage

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

The bolded blue is a reference to the mix multitude generation from egypt at the foot of the mount that were not allowed to enter the promised land.
2 Corinthians 6:17

Blessings Always

 

[tango]

You just open up dictionaries and find words that aren’t normally used just to confuse people?

Perhaps some people just have a larger vocabulary than you do. If you don't understand a word it is pretty simple to look it up in a dictionary, or even to Google it if you don't feel like opening up a physical book.

As to what is "normally used" that depends on the context. Some people naturally use a different vocabulary to others. The fact you don't normally use a word doesn't mean it has no place in normal conversation between other people.

 

[NathanH83]

Perhaps some people just have a larger vocabulary than you do. If you don't understand a word it is pretty simple to look it up in a dictionary, or even to Google it if you don't feel like opening up a physical book.

As to what is "normally used" that depends on the context. Some people naturally use a different vocabulary to others. The fact you don't normally use a word doesn't mean it has no place in normal conversation between other people.

When someone uses words that are hardly ever used by the general yeomanry, then they’re not helping to effulge much light on the colloquy, but instead just makes them appear to be obfuscating their knavishness with intellectual patois.